Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

LIVERPOOL EXTENSION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Pottery Industry

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made recently with the proposal to set up a development council for the pottery industry; and what further action is proposed.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Details of the proposals referred to in the reply given by my predecessor to my hon. Friend on 22nd February have been worked out by my officials and are now being considered by the industry.

Mr. Davies: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend take the view that it is time we had a decision on this important matter, especially in view of the information he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) last Thursday when he said there was great expansion of this industry? Is it not a fact that in matters of health, status, and problems relating to exports the workers have a great interest? Ought they not to be considered and would not a development council help in this matter?

Sir H. Shawcross: I think that implementation of the proposals would be of value in the industry, but it was necessary to consider very carefully how some aspects of these proposals would fit in with the legal framework of the Act.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is not the real difficulty of the pottery industry the shortage of workers? Is there not a plentiful demand at home for pottery, especially coloured pottery, all of which is being exported?

Sir H. Shawcross: Yes, but it is important, in view of the difficulties of the industry, that we should find the most efficient and economical methods for increasing its output.

Factory, Blackpool (Allocation)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he took to satisfy himself that the allocation by him to Messrs. Hawker Aircraft Limited of the factory at Squires Gate, Blackpool, would not result in redundancy and unemployment arising at this firm's factories in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames; and whether he will give an assurance that no such redundancy and unemployment will in fact result.

Sir H. Shawcross: The allocation of the Blackpool factory to Messrs. Hawker Aircraft Ltd., was made to enable them to increase their production, and I understand that it is the intention of the Company to continue to use their existing capacity and labour at Kingston-upon-Thames to the fullest extent.

Officials (Entry Powers)

Mr. Bossom: asked the President of the. Board of Trade how many officials of his Department have the right to enter business or private premises without a court order or search warrant.

Sir H. Shawcross: The number of Board of Trade officials with power to enter business premises without a court order or search warrant is 179. No official of the Board of Trade is authorised to enter private houses used exclusively as such.

Mr. Bossom: How many convictions have been secured during the last year?

Sir H. Shawcross: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. Bossom: Would not the police have been equally competent to do the work that these 179 officials are doing?

Sir H. Shawcross: No, Sir. This is largely specialised work which it would be unwise to impose on the police. I have no doubt that the existence of this force of inspectors helps to avoid offences being committed and prosecutions having to take place.

Sweden (Trade Agreement)

Mr. Oakshott: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects that conversations will be begun with Sweden regarding a new trade agreement.

Sir H. Shawcross: Before the end of the year, Sir.

Mr. Oakshott: Is it not a fact that the present position of trade between the two countries is being badly thrown out of balance by the shortage of deliveries from the United Kingdom, especially of coal? Is the Minister aware that the Swedish Government have recently cancelled the issue of any further export licences for softwoods to the United Kingdom because of this unbalance? Is it not rather urgent that these conversations should take place?

Sir H. Shawcross: We have the whole position of this agreement in mind. The Swedish Government have maintained their deliveries of timber, pulp, and iron ore at the figures agreed.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is it not a fact that at present difficulties about granting export licences for timber already contracted for are arising and that orders are being issued that no further contracts will be entered into by Swedish exporters except subject to the issue of an export licence by the Swedish Government? In view of the comparative shortness of the season for bringing timber into this country, does not this indicate the necessity for doing something fairly soon?

Sir H. Shawcross: No; we have no reason to think that the arrangements that will be made between us and the Swedes between now and the end of the year will seriously affect our interests in these matters. Our difficulties regarding exports of certain raw materials are well understood.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Is not the main difficulty in all these trade agreements our failure to export coal, and will the Minister not impress afresh on his colleagues the necessity of re-organising the Coal Board and putting it on a better basis?

North America (United Kingdom Imports)

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the figures of the total value of United Kingdom exports to Canada given in Table No. 117, supplied by his Department to the current issue of the "Monthly Digest and Statistics," are given in United States instead of Canadian dollars.

Sir H. Shawcross: We are concerned to expand our exports to the dollar area as a whole and our progress towards this important objective can best be measured in terms of United States dollars when comparisons are being made over a period which includes years before devaluation. The tables in question therefore include a column showing the United States dollar equivalent of our exports to the United States and Canada as well as the sterling figures.

Mr. Russell: Should not the table also give Canadian dollars? Is it not wrong that trade between this country and one of the Dominions should be given only in United States dollars?

Sir H. Shawcross: I think it would perhaps cause a little confusion if two different figures for dollars were quoted. The conversion is not very difficult.

Cloth Converters (Double Invoicing)

Mr. Burden: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the practice of double invoicing between converters of cloth and their customers is growing; that this practice increases the price of clothing to the public and reduces the revenue from Purchase Tax; and if he will introduce legislation to prevent this.

Sir H. Shawcross: I am aware of the practice to which the hon. Member refers. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary discussed the matter with representatives of the converters on Monday last, and is arranging for it to be considered shortly by the cotton and rayon utility scheme committees.

Insecticide Exports

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much D.D.T. or chlorine-based insecticide is available for export; how much has been exported in each of the last three years; and to what countries.

Sir H. Shawcross: I regret that the information asked for is not available from official sources. D.D.T. and chlorine-based insecticide are not separately distinguished in the trade returns.

Mr. Sorensen: Has there been an increase or a decrease in the production of these substances? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is some danger of a shortage of these extremely important and valuable substances? What is being done to overcome that shortage?

Sir H. Shawcross: I will look into the point which my hon. Friend has raised.

Paper

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action His Majesty's Government has taken, since 24th November last, to carry out the Resolution of the House of that day, with regard to the supply of paper and paper-making raw materials.

Sir H. Shawcross: We have continued our declared policy of providing facilities for the import of all the essential paper, board and paper making materials, and we have been ready to encourage any economic project for the further utilisation of domestic raw materials. We have also taken steps to economise on the use of paper in Government Departments and have given full support to the waste paper salvage campaign which is now producing record results. In addition, we have supported the setting up of the Pulp and Paper Committee of the International Materials Conference which is now studying world supplies of newsprint and kraft pulp. It is hoped that the work of this Committee may result in a more equitable distribution of available supplies.

Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only hope of short-term relief is in the maximum utilisation of home-produced straw, and that now is the time to look at this problem so far as this year's crop is concerned? Would he discuss the matter with his right hon.

Friend the Minister of Agriculture to see what can be done to that end?

Sir H. Shawcross: Yes, Sir. That possibility has been brought to my notice and is being examined. Another hon. Member has already communicated with me about it.

Sir William Darling: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered the possibility of using the common nettle, urtica, which was used by the Romans for making paper? There is an abundant supply in this country which could be used as a substitute.

Sir H. Shawcross: If the hon. Gentleman will provide me with a formula for converting the common nettle into newsprint I should be most grateful to him.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade the cumulative tonnage of waste paper consigned to the mills during five months ended 31st May, 1951; whether the rate of consignment is now commensurate with the target of 1 million tons for the full year 1951; whether that target is now deemed adequate for all defence, export trade and home trade requirements during 1951; and whether the board manufacturing industry is now working to full capacity.

Sir H. Shawcross: Statistics of mills receipts of waste paper for the month of May are not yet available. In the 16 weeks ending 28th April, 1951, mills' receipts amounted to approximately 302,000 tons. Although receipts reached the record rate of 1,056,000 tons per annum in the month of April, board mills are still partly idle for the lack of waste paper. Full requirements probably considerably exceed the rate of 1 million tons per annum.

Mr. Nabarro: Is this not a case for a considerable enlargement of the salvage plans of the Waste Paper Recovery Association, for is it not clear that we are not yet by any means collecting all this valuable salvage material?

Sir H. Shawcross: Collection is going reasonably well. Only four councils with populations of over 50,000 have not yet decided to start separate collections, but I am anxious that all local authorities should assist in this most important task.

Mr. Paton: Is it not a fact that, on the information which the Minister has given


us, this is obviously the time for applying compulsion to the local authorities who refuse to do anything in the matter? I am distressed at the amount of paper from my own home which I have seen wasted and which ought to be put to effective use in the salvage drive, but which is not used because my local authority will not do anything about it.

Wing Commander Bullus: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the Waste Paper Recovery Association's statement that the campaign of collection of waste paper is threatened with collapse?

Sir H. Shawcross: I could not concur in that statement.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the criterion in this matter is not the number of authorities collecting but the enthusiasm with which each authority collects?

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

10. Lieut.-Colonel Sir THOMAS MOORE—To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his plans for controlling the rising price of sisal so as to make it economically possible for Scottish fishermen to maintain their fishing gear efficiently, or replace it when worn out.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Some of us are alarmed, Sir, at the mysterious disappearance of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), in whose name Question No. 10 is on the Order Paper. Could not an arrangement be made for the Question to be asked?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not here to ask the Question, so it cannot be asked.

Carpet Industry

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the damaging effects to the carpet industry in Britain, arising from discriminatory export taxes imposed by the Indian Government upon such raw materials as wool and jute yarn which are indispensable to carpet production in

Britain; and what negotiations are in hand by his Department to secure cancellation or abandonment of the taxes by the Indian Government.

Sir H. Shawcross: I am aware of the existence of export taxes imposed by the Government of India on a number of Indian products including wool and jute yarn. These duties are not discriminatory but apply to all exports irrespective of destination. We have made known to the Indian authorities our concern at the effect which the present high level of certain duties is having on the cost of materials to the United Kingdom industry, but we have not so far been able to persuade the Indian Government to alter the duties.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that my use of the word "discriminatory" means that two products have been selected from a whole range of products to which to apply these duties? Is he aware that this is particularly damaging to the textile industry in Britain?

Sir H. Shawcross: I see no reason to think that these items were selected with a view to discrimination against British trade or industry. It is the policy of some Governments to select particular articles of their own production or manufacture for the imposition of duties.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade why carpets and rugs of Indian and Pakistani origin are admitted into the United Kingdom duty free, whereas carpets and rugs of British manufacture are subject to ad valorem import duties of up to 45 per cent. entering India and Pakistan; and what steps he is taking to secure reciprocity in this regard.

Sir H. Shawcross: Carpets which are manufactured in Commonwealth countries are entitled to free entry into the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932. These Agreements are of great mutual benefit and confer valuable tariff advantages to United Kingdom exporters. They do not, however, contain any obligation on the part of India or Pakistan to accord free entry to carpets and rugs of British manufacture although, in the case of India, our exports of carpets enjoy a guaranteed preference of 10 per cent. and an actual


preference of 12½ per cent. It is impossible to negotiate trade agreements on the basis of reciprocity of treatment for individual commodities.

Denmark (Exports to U.K.)

Mr. Bossom: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the present balance as between our purchases from Denmark and what they buy from us; and under what circumstances are our farmers able to purchase Danish pigs for breeding purposes.

Sir H. Shawcross: In the 12 months ended April, 1951, imports from Denmark were £108.3 million c.i.f., according to the Trade Accounts, and total exports, including re-exports, were £63.9 million f.o.b. The export of breeding-stock pigs to the United Kingdom is prohibited by the Danish Government.

Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister think it is very desirable to see the great differential between the amount we buy and the amount Denmark buys from us? Should we not ask the Danish Government to reconsider this matter, because the breakfast table of England generally prefers Danish bacon to British bacon, unfortunately, and we want to get more pigs over here for that purpose.

Sir H. Shawcross: I am sorry that the lion. Gentleman is disparaging the British agricultural industry in this respect.

Mr. Bossom: On the contrary, I am quoting the National Farmers' Union, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware if he looks into the matter.

Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that British pigs are sought after all over the world for crossing with native pigs for the production of bacon? Will he do everything he can to uphold that honourable position which we now hold?

Sir H. Shawcross: Yes, Sir. I will even invite the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) to breakfast with me from a British pig.

Mr. Bossom: I will accept that offer.

Utility Goods (Specifications)

Mr. Burden: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints

his Department has received since 1st January, 1951, that utility merchandise has not complied with minimum requirements laid down as utility specifications; and in how many of these cases his Department has instituted prosecutions.

Sir H. Shawcross: The time and labour involved in extracting this information from the correspondence which my Department receives about utility goods would not, in my opinion, be justified, but if the hon. Member has any particular case or class of merchandise in mind I will gladly look into it further. I can say, however, that the total volume of complaint is relatively small. No proceedings have yet been instituted as a result of complaints received since 1st January, 1951.

Mr. Burden: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is growing disquiet at the fact that the utility specifications are not in many cases being kept, and will he assure the House that his Department is keeping a very close eye on this in the interests of the public?

Sir H. Shawcross: Yes, Sir. I certainly think that it is of the utmost importance that the utility specifications should be fully maintained, and I rely on the support of the various sections of British industry concerned to see that they are maintained. I do not think that this support is always best obtained by prosecution, but I shall certainly take adequate steps to ensure that, as I hope, they play the game.

Mr. Osborne: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the overwhelming majority of British manufacturers who produce utility goods have played the game with him, and have kept to the specification requirements?

Sir H. Shawcross: Yes, Sir. I think that the utility scheme in general has been a great success. There have been a few exceptional cases where specifications have been departed from, but I would certainly pay tribute to the way in which, in general, the scheme has been operated.

Fishing Industry (Manila)

Mr. Duthie: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement concerning the provision of manila cordage for the fishing industry.

Sir H. Shawcross: Yes, Sir. As the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) was informed on 12th April, the importation of an additional 4,000 tons of manila hemp has been allowed specially for making into fishing gear for our fishermen at the rate of 1,000 tons per quarter. I understand that adequate purchases have been made by manufacturers, that the manila is arriving in regular quantities, and that ropes and twine made from it will be available for purchase by our fishermen after 1st July for early delivery. As the 4,000 tons may not be sufficient to meet all the fishermen's demands, arrangements are being made to ensure a fair distribution among users to whom the manila will be most valuable on the basis of certificates issued by local fishery officers.

Mr. Duthie: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House and the fishing industry how the price of this manila compares with the price of sisal? Can he give an assurance that there will be continuity of supply after the present purchase has been exhausted?

Sir H. Shawcross: I cannot include myself among the prophets as to the future, but the prices of manila ropes and manila seine ropes are at present £271 5s. and £283 15s. per ton as compared with sisal ropes at £279 10s. and £292.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that these increased supplies will not be available to foreign fishermen?

Sir H. Shawcross: Yes, I said in my answer that these supplies are being provided on the certificates of local fishery officers so as to ensure a fair distribution.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: Will some preference be given to the clamant needs of the inshore fishing industry as against the deep sea fishing industry, particularly in Scotland? I should like an assurance about that.

Sir H. Shawcross: That, I think, is a question that would more properly be addressed to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but I have no doubt that the local fishery officers are paying due regard to those considerations in issuing the certificates.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that while these supplies of manila rope are very welcome to the industry, and especially to the inshore industry—if they are available for that part of the industry—the continuing high cost of gear is a very serious matter indeed to all fishermen? Is he in touch with the White Fish Authority on this subject with a view to carrying out experiments in the use of other materials and other methods to reduce the cost of gear?

Sir H. Shawcross: That is a question of which I should want notice.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify the matter a little by saying whether the distribution of this material comes under his Department or under the Ministry of Agriculture? I do not quite see how it will be worked out.

Sir H. Shawcross: Distribution to the fisherman is made on certificates by the local fishery officers of the Ministry of Agriculture. The actual distribution is in the hands of the Board of Trade.

Statutory Instrument No. 413

Mr. Crouch: asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is proposed to introduce a Bill of Indemnity, rendered necessary by the failure to lay properly Statutory Instrument No. 413.

Sir H. Shawcross: As the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) was informed on 29th May, it is hoped to introduce a Bill this month.

Harris Tweed (Stamping)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the President of the Board of Trade what amount of Orb-mark stamped Harris tweed was produced in each of the years 1948, 1949 and 1950; and how much unstamped Harris tweed in 1950.

Sir H. Shawcross: I understand that 4,463 thousand yards were stamped in 1948, 4,101 thousand yards in 1949, and 3,780 thousand yards in 1950. As regards the last part of the Question, I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is agreed


by almost all responsible quarters knowing anything about this industry that the 66⅔ per cent. rate of Purchase Tax is too heavy an incidence upon this industry? Is he also aware that it is one of the factors in the drop in production—the very serious drop in production—that is causing under employment and unemployment? Will he consult with the Treasury and others about this matter?

Sir H. Shawcross: I understand that the annual rate of stamping so far this year is very little different from the actual total during 1950.

Canadian Timber Supplies

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the agreement reached recently with Canada for supplies of timber.

Sir H. Shawcross: An agreement has been reached between Timber Control and softwood exporters in British Columbia, which provides for about 340,000 standards of softwood for shipment to this country up to the end of June, 1952.

Mr. Russell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that everything possible is being done to increase imports of timber from Canada, and to get them back on a pre-war footing?

Sir H. Shawcross: Yes, Sir, we are anxious to obtain all the timber that we can acquire, and it is believed that the amount that we are obtaining under this and other contracts is the total capacity available at present.

Mr. Oakshott: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, while that news is very welcome, the softwood supplies are still by no means sufficient for the country's requirements? Will he therefore bear in mind a Question we had earlier today, and hurry up the conversations with Sweden?

Manufacturers' and Distributors' Prices

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give separately the 34 Orders which since 1st March, 1951, raised manufacturers' maximum prices or distributors' prices,

giving also the percentage increase on each item.

Sir H. Shawcross: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the 34 orders, with a rough estimate of the percentage increase in maximum prices in respect of the classes of goods covered by each order. As these orders cover many thousands of items, it is not practicable to give figures in respect of each item.

Mr. Osborne: Could the President say, roughly, how many of these 34 items are reflected in the cost-of-living index, and will he see, since they really affect to a considerable degree the ordinary working-class budget, that they are reflected in that index?

Sir H. Shawcross: I should have to have notice of that question. I cannot attempt to answer, in respect of all the thousands of items concerned, how many are included in the cost-of-living index. Most of the significant ones I believe to be so included.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say in how many of these 34 cases an attempt was made to prevent manufacturers from receiving the higher prices by the Opposition's praying against the orders?

Mr. Burden: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure his hon. Friends that price increases were permitted only after careful consideration of the increases in the costs of raw materials, and that they do not mean much larger profits to the manufacturers?

Sir H. Shawcross: It may indeed be asked why, in those circumstances, hon. Members prayed against the orders, but I am most anxious to ensure, whether by Prayers from the other side of the House or by any other method, that maximum prices are not increased unless there is the most complete justification for their being increased after costing examination of the manufacturers' accounts.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise—after a little more experience in his office he will realise—that Prayers provide excellent opportunities of assuring the House of the correctness of his statements?

Following is the list:

ORDERS INCREASING PERMITTED MAXIMUM PRICES


Operative Date of Order

Order No.

Goods Affected
Maximum Price Increases







Per cent.


5.3.51
…
S.I.297
…
Nurses' Utility Uniforms (cotton)
12 to 25


5.3.51
…
S.I.298
…
Utility Gaberdine Raincoats:—







Wool
2*






Cotton
8 to 12


5.3.51
…
S.I.303
…
Pram Rugs
22 to 30


5.3.51
…
S.I.312
…
Carpets
5 to 25


14.3.51
…
S.I.376
…
Utility Industrial Overalls and Merchant Navy Uniforms
5 to 21


2.4.51
…
S.I.395
…
Utility Knitted Cotton Cloth
4






Utility Knitted Astrakhan Stockinette
15






Utility Knitted Silk and Rayon Stockings
9 to 13


19.3.51
…
S.I.398
…
Men's, Youths' and Boys' Utility Outerwear:—







Garments made from cheaper cloths
6 to 28


19.3.51
…
S.I.399
…
Utility Braces
17½ to 27


19.3.51
…
S.I.400
…
Men's and Boys' Utility Shirts, Underwear and Nightwear:—







Cotton
15*






Wool
25*


19.3.51
…
S.I.401
…
Corsets
5 to 30


19.3.51
…
S.I.421
…
General Hollow ware:—







Tinned Steel
19






Galvanised
2


16.4.51
…
S.I.585
…
Utility Handkerchiefs
2½ to 15


15.5.51
…
S.I.586
…
Women's and Maids' Utility Outerwear:—







Wool
23*






Rayon
10*


10.4.51
…
S.I.600
…
Men's and Boys' Utility Shirts, Underwear and Nightwear:—







Certain cotton garments
2 to 5


23.4.51
…
S.I.650
…
Utility Apparel Cloths:—







Cotton, Cotton Mixture and Linen
2½ to 15


23.4.51
…
S.I.651
…
Utility Household Textiles
3½ to 15


23.4.51
…
S.I.655
…
Cast Iron Hollow ware
10 to 22½


1.5.51
…
S.I.661
…
Utility Knitted Cloth and Garments of which:—







Cotton goods
10*






Silk goods
16*






Wool goods
20*


27.4.51
…
S.I.682
…
Utility Lace and Woven Curtain Net
9 to 38


4.5.51
…
S.I.731
…
Utility Gaberdine Raincoats:—







Wool
20*






Cotton
2*


7.5.51
…
S.I.750
…
Utility Stools
7½


3.5.51
…
S.I.766
…
Men's and Boys' Utility Shirts Underwear and Nightwear:—







Knitted Rayon
4 to 8


11.5.51
…
S.I.788
…
Linoleum
6 to 10½






Printed Felt Base
10


15.5.51
…
S.I.810
…
Women's and Maids' Utility Outerwear:—







Certain Cotton Garments
7½ to 15


21.5.51
…
S.I.842
…
Certain Utility Corsets
3 to 6


18.5.51
…
S.I.846
…
Perambulators
12½


22.5.51
…
S.I.851
…
Utility Woven Rayon Apparel Cloths
3½ to 16½


22.5.51
…
S.I.863
…
Women's and Maids' Utility Underwear and Nightwear:—







Knitted Rayon Garments
6 to 8






Certain Cotton Garments
7½ to 15


23.5.51
…
S.I.872
…
Men's, Youths' and Boys' Utility Outerwear
Up to 28


31.5.51
…
S.I.893
…
Utility Woven Blankets
15


28.5.51
…
S.I.894
…
Women's Utility Domestic Overalls and Aprons:—







Rayon
8 to 10






Cotton
2½ to 5


30.5.51
…
S.I.900
…
Most Infants' and Girls' Utility Light Outerwear
11 to 20


31.5.51
…
S.I.924
…
Candles (common paraffin wax)
20


4.6.51
…
S.I.940
…
Non-upholstered Utility Furniture:—
7½ to 15






Spring Mattresses
5 to 39






Cane and Woven Fibre Furniture
14 to 20


* Estimated Average Increase.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRIVERS, MANCHESTER (SUMMONSES)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of summonses issued in the Manchester county magistrates area since the beginning of the year against British Road Services, White City, Manchester, and its drivers, relating to excessive hours of driving; how many were proceeded with; and with what result.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have made inquiries and am informed that since 1st January, 1951, 288 summonses have been issued in the Manchester county magistrates' area against British Road Services, White City, Manchester, for permitting their drivers to exceed permitted hours. Of these, 22 have come up for hearing. There have been seven convictions and four dismissals; the remaining cases have been adjourned pending the determination by the High Court of an appeal in respect of one of the cases. The figures in respect of drivers are the same. Sixty-one drivers are involved.

Mr. Baker White: Is the Home Secretary aware that a statement was issued from the magistrates' county court that 576 summonses have been heard, and that all except three were adjourned indefinitely? Does "indefinitely" mean that there is a feather bed for British Road Services?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think that what it means is that there is a similar case under appeal, that the decision in that might govern the decision in the remainder of the cases, and that they are adjourned until the High Court has reached a decision.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that if the appeal goes against British Road Services in this matter there will be no question of tolerating large-scale breaches of the law by a nationalised undertaking?

Mr. Ede: That is not a matter for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILES (ASSAULT)

Mr. Redmayne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has taken note of a recent case of violent

assault by a boy of 12 years of age on a girl of five years of age, particulars of which have been sent to him; and if he will make a statement on future policy in regard to the treatment of juvenile offenders.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member drew my attention to this case, in which two brothers, aged 12 and nine, attacked two five-year old children; and I should like to express my sympathy with the feeling it has aroused and my concern for the victims. I have considered a suggestion made to me by the hon. Member that there should be an inquiry into the possibility of giving the courts power to impose corporal punishment in cases of this kind, but after studying the reports on the elder boy's background and personality I can find no grounds for thinking that corporal punishment would be a suitable form of treatment. Nor do I think that this case affords sufficient grounds for re-opening the question of the power of the court to order corporal punishment.

Mr. Redmayne: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in the opinion of juvenile court magistrates, probation Officers, senior police officers and, indeed, some clerks to justices, corporal punishment is the only answer; and would he at least call in evidence those who were concerned with this case so that he may be sure that he has the best advice on the subject?

Mr. Ede: When this matter was considered by the Magistrates' Association the opposite view to that expressed by the hon. Gentleman was adopted by a majority. I have made very careful inquiries into this case and into the personality of the older of these two boys.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Officers, London (Treatment of Animals)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to give instructions to officers of the Metropolitan Police in the care and treatment of animals, in view of the heavy duties which fall on them in this connection.

Mr. Ede: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that Metropolitan


police officers are instructed in the general law relating to animals and the steps they should take to get the best and quickest expert treatment for injured or sick animals in public places.

Mr. Freeman: While appreciating the excellent work they are doing, might I ask my right hon. Friend to allow representatives of organisations such as the R.S.P.C.A. to give occasional talks to these officers on both the legal and humanitarian aspects?

Mr. Ede: The officers are given appropriate training in this when they go to training centres on recruitment. The very closest liaison and co-operation exists between the police and the R.S.P.C.A., and I am quite sure that anything that can be done for their mutual benefit will always be welcomed.

New Station, Ledbury

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the proposal to erect a new police station at Ledbury, Herefordshire, entailing considerable capital expenditure, is strongly opposed by the local authority and the inhabitants; and whether, in view of this opposition, he will reconsider the proposal.

Mr. Ede: This proposal is the responsibility of the county police authority. I may say, however, that I am advised that a new police station is badly needed at Ledbury and I should not be justified in discouraging the police authority from providing it.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the necessity for keeping down capital expenditure at this time and the fact that there is a long waiting list of people who want houses at Ledbury, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this proposal might wait until these people have houses to live in?

Mr. Ede: I am advised that this work is urgently needed for the public service.

Mr. David Jones: Could not my right hon. Friend persuade the Conservative Party to persuade the Conservative members on the council concerned to deal with the matter?

Long Service and Good Conduct Medal

Mr. Viant: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the grant of recognition for long service in the police.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. His Majesty has approved proposals for the institution of a Police Long Service and Good Conduct Medal. A short White Paper on the subject is available in the Vote Office.

Commander Noble: While welcoming the answer that the Prime Minister has just made, may I ask if he would consider consulting with his right hon. Friends as to whether special arrangements could not be made for rehousing members of the force at the end of their service when they leave their married quarters? At the moment they can give years notice of their leaving, but they do not receive any special consideration until they are actually evicted. Is he aware that there is a member of the staff of the House, well-known to hon. Members, who, today, is in this very position?

The Prime Minister: That question ought to have been put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Commander Noble: I hope he is taking a note of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (TRAVEL DOCUMENTS)

Mr. Sydney Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has refused a visa to Mr. and Mrs. Kisiel, now permanently resident in Israel, to enable them to visit their 12 year old son who is at school in this country and whom they have not seen for several years.

Mr. Ede: The son of Mr. and Mrs. Kisiel came to this country from Poland in April, 1950, to visit his uncle for six months. His uncle sent him to a boarding school and towards the end of the six months sought and received permission for him to remain here to attend the school for a further year. The boy's parents moved from Poland to Israel in November, 1950. Their applications for visas to come here for a visit were refused


because it was believed that their real object was to settle in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. and Mrs. Kisiel have applied for naturalisation in Israel, and that Mr. Kisiel has offered the fullest possible guarantees that, if this natural desire of the parents to come here to visit their son is granted, there will be no application of any kind for any increase of the normal residence visa? Will my right hon. Friend say what guarantees he would accept before acceding to this very natural desire and not penalise people for things done by others over whom they have no control of any kind?

Mr. Ede: The father in this case has only been in Israel since November, 1950. I have had inquiries made in Tel Aviv and I am told that he has not yet established himself there in his profession. When he has been there a little longer and has become established, so that I can feel that there is a reasonable prospect of it being to his advantage to go back to Israel, I should be prepared very favourably to consider an application for a visa.

Mr. Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that he said in his original answer that he had reason to believe that there was the intention of remaining here? Has not my right hon. Friend been offered, both by the applicants and by their friends here, the fullest possible guarantees to the contrary?

Mr. Ede: I have had a very unfortunate experience in trying to get these guarantees honoured when the time comes, and appeals are then made to me on all sorts of sympathetic grounds. I think the answer I gave in reply to the first supplementary question is an indication that as soon as I can really feel sure that it will be to this man's interests to go back to Israel I shall be quite willing to consider admitting him.

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Secretar of State for the Home Department why he has refused a Home Office certificate of identity to Mr. Julian Likierman who left Poland nearly 30 years ago, who has no intention of returning there, whose passport has expired, who is normally resident in this country, who is a director of an important company doing export business of great value to the country,

and who requires such a certificate to facilitate his journeys abroad in the interests of that export trade.

Mr. Ede: My Department issues documents of identity for travel only to aliens who cannot obtain a valid foreign passport. Mr. Likierman has had his Polish passport renewed by the Polish authorities in 1947 and 1948, and I have no reason to suppose that he could not have it renewed again.

Mr. Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this gentleman left Poland over 30 years ago, when Poland was merely a geographical expression and not a sovereign State at all; that he has never been back there since; that his application for a passport in 1947 and 1948 was when he was a refugee in Roumania, and when it was his only possible means of coming out of that country; that all those facts were known to my right hon. Friend when his visa was granted to him here; and that for him to apply now for a renewal of his Polish passport would be to embarrass him considerably in his declared intention of permanent residence here?

Mr. Ede: This gentleman first came to the United Kingdom on 13th March, 1947, from Bucharest. Therefore, he is not a long-established resident in this country. He is a Polish citizen, and I think that if he wants to travel about the world, while he can get a Polish passport that should be the document on which he should travel.

Mr. Silverman: I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising the matters on both Question No. 26 and Question No. 27 at a suitable opportunity.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were his reasons for refusing Professor Joliot-Curie permission to enter this country for the purpose of attending in the interests of world peace a meeting convened for that purpose.

Mr. Ede: I decided that it would not be in the public interest to allow Professor Joliot-Curie to come to this country to attend the conference in London on 9th and 10th June, organised by the so-called British Peace Committee. The British Peace Committee is an integral part of


the Communist-dominated World Peace Movement, which is recognised as an instrument of Soviet foreign policy, designed to secure peace on Soviet terms.

Mr. Davies: In view of the fiction that has passed as an answer to the Question I put down on the Order Paper, I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE SERVICE

Wotton House (Building Operations)

Mr. Touche: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that anxiety is felt that the building operations taking place at the Fire Service College, Wotton House, is destroying the architectural and aesthetic merits of John Evelyn's Elizabethan mansion; and if he will consider consulting the Fine Art Commission or some other appropriate body on this matter.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I am not aware of any general anxiety about the building work at Wotton House. The property was largely re-built about 1860 and only a very small part of the interior, and none of the exterior, dates from the 16th century. The work has been carried out in full consultation with the Ancient Monuments Inspectorate of the Ministry of Works and with the planning authority.

Local Authority Brigades

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authority fire brigades there were in England and Wales on 1st January, 1939, and 1951 respectively.

Mr. de Freitas: About 1,000 and 135 respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS

Labour

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the views of the Prison Officers' Association expressed

at their recent conference, an account of which has been sent to him, about the small amount of work being done by prisoners; and whether he will review the position to enable prisoners to make a more useful contribution to production needs.

Mr. Ede: I am, of course, well aware of the desirability of making the most effective use of prison labour. As regards work in prison workshops, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) on 14th December and 22nd February last. I am glad to be able to inform the House that there has been an appreciable improvement in the position this year as compared with last year and the year before. It is unfortunately true that in many prisons the workshop hours do not exceed 25 a week, but that is due not to the shortage of work but to the continued shortage of staff.

Mr. Jeger: Would it not be possible for my right hon. Friend to institute a Departmental inquiry into the prospect of putting these people to proper work in the prisons, so that they could rehabilitate themselves as worthy citizens, earn some money which would enable them to pay their National Insurance contributions, and, at the same time, perhaps make a useful contribution to our rearmament needs?

Mr. Ede: The employment position has improved considerably. I do all I can to increase amounts, and I do not think that a further inquiry would be helpful, because the fullest efforts are made now to do what my hon. Friend wishes.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: While I am sure that what the right hon. Gentleman says is right, and that there has been a considerable improvement, will he keep at this case because I am quite certain that there is much more that can still be done?

Mr. Ede: This matter is continually under my personal attention in an effort to ensure that these men have a chance to have their hands and minds usefully occupied.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does the Home Secretary not agree that the hours of work which he


imposes upon the occupants of His Majesty's prisons compare unfavourably with the hours of work which he imposes upon hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Ede: Unfortunately, hon. Members impose their own hours of work here.

Detention Centre, Goudhurst

Mr. Deedes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the Prison Commissioners decided to acquire Mr. Fegan's Homes, Goudhurst, Kent, for use as a detention centre for young men; and on what date the Cranbrook Rural District Council were first officially consulted about this proposal.

Mr. Ede: On 4th April I authorised the Prison Commissioners to acquire this property, subject to the concurrence of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Local Government and Planning. I understand that my right hon. Friend has consulted the local planning authority, the Kent County Council, and that the County Council notified the Commissioners' proposals to the Cranbrook Rural District Council on 23rd May, 1951.

Mr. Deedes: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the correspondence about this proposal was marked "Private and confidential" for the six months between January and the end of May; whether he is aware that there is very strong local opposition to this scheme in view of the fact that there are four big schools in the area; and will he now receive a deputation from the Cranbrook Rural District Council to discuss the matter in view of the fact that it has been kept secret for so long?

Mr. Ede: I have already agreed to receive a deputation from the Cranbrook Rural District Council on 21st June. As to the other matters raised in that supplementary, when the public desire to obtain possession of property for a purpose such as this, it is generally in the public interest that the negotiations should be kept secret, at any rate at the beginning.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIME STATISTICS

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many criminal offences within the United Kingdom the persons concerned, convicted

during the past 12 months, have been foreigners or persons who have been awarded British nationality since 1946.

Mr. Ede: The information asked for is not available, as the nationality of persons convicted is not taken into account in the compilation of criminal statistics.

Sir R. Glyn: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather unfair to blame any increase in crime on British subjects if it is proved that there is a large number of people of foreign origin who are carrying out these offences?

Mr. Ede: I fear that the increase in crime cannot be sufficiently accounted for by making the fullest allowance for what the hon. Gentleman has just said. It seems to me that there is a lapse in the amount of information available, and I am considering whether, in future, statistics something on those lines can be provided.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON TAXICAB FARES (INCREASE)

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations from cab drivers' official trades union branches have been received adverse to the recent decision to increase fares in the metropolitan area.

Mr. Ede: None, Sir.

Sir R. Glyn: Is it not a fact that a large number of ex-Service men who are driving their taxis now inform their friends that the number of fares they get per day is reduced by 30 per cent? Is this not imposing very great hardship on these men, and is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that the men's interests were equally thought of when the alterations were made?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I did, however, receive a letter during the week from an hon. Member in which he enclosed one from a taxi driver saying that he was doing just as well as before.

Oral Answers to Questions — BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (DISCIPLINE)

Mr. Amory: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is proposing to take to deal with the deterioration in discipline in Borstal establishments.

Mr. Ede: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) and the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) on 7th June.

Mr. Amory: While the right hon. Gentleman is clearly right to await the report, I hope that he will take action as soon as possible after receiving that report, as those who are responsible for running these institutions, and who are doing their utmost to do a really good job for the young men in their charge, are faced with great difficulty?

Mr. Osborne: Can the Home Secretary say when he expects the report to be available?

Mr. Ede: It is in the printers' hands now.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Recruitment

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what regions of England and Wales is the number of Civil Defence recruits below the average per thousand for the country as a whole.

Mr. de Freitas: The North Eastern, North Western, Midland, North Midland and London Civil Defence Regions and Wales.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my hon. Friend say why the North-Eastern Region and the London Region in particular are so far below the average in this respect, and what he is doing to bring them up to the average established by the North Region?

Mr. de Freitas: I cannot say definitely what the reason is. We are paying special attention to these two regions. They were slow off the mark, and I think that they will be coming along well. The figure refers to the average, and if regions do well there will always be some below the average if there are others above it.

Air-raid Shelters (Survey)

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have notified the Home Office that before undertaking the second stage of the air-raid shelter survey called for in Civil Defence Circular No. 48/1950 they desire to be assured that the whole

cost of the survey and the provision of shelters will be borne by the Exchequer.

Mr. de Freitas: Three, Sir. Two have withdrawn their objections, and we are having discussions with the third.

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when local authorities will be informed that they may engage additional staff necessary to complete the second stage of the shelter survey called for in Civil Defence Circular No. 48/1950; and whether he is now prepared to authorise a 100 per cent. grant for this purpose.

Mr. de Freitas: Local authorities do not need Home Office approval for this but I hope they will not find it necessary to take on additional staff. As to the second part, the answer is "No, Sir."

Mr. Braine: Has the Home Office not considered the view that it is wrong for local authorities in vulnerable areas to bear this expense while other local authorities elsewhere may not have to incur any expense at all; and should not the whole cost of these defence works be borne by the Exchequer?

Mr. de Freitas: Discussions are going on at present with the local authorities' associations about the rate of the Exchequer grant.

Industrial and Commercial Premises

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the plans for the organisation of Civil Defence in industrial and commercial premises.

Mr. de Freitas: Plans for the organisation of Civil Defence units in industrial and commercial premises have been published today as Industrial Bulletin No. 1 and the distribution of copies to those immediately affected will begin this evening. Copies of the Bulletin are available in the Vote Office. It is not intended to seek to impose obligations on either employers or workpeople at this stage, but I am confident that everyone will co-operate to make a success of this part of our defence preparations. The Government proposes to organise Civil Defence in Government premises in the ways proposed in the Bulletin.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether, contained in the Bulletin, are regulations which are more flexible than were the ones in the war, which resulted in Civil Defence units in factories and Government offices being forbidden to take part in rescue work outside those premises? There were occasions when such units had to watch rescue squads operating on the other side of the street, themselves being unable to help? Will he look into it?

Mr. de Freitas: Certainly. I believe that hon. Members who study this Bulletin will see that it is a very great improvement as a result of our experiences during the last war.

Mr. Nabarro: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that adequate supplies of training material will be readily available for factory defence units?

Mr. de Freitas: I am not aware that there has been any shortage. I will look into that point in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — REMAND HOME, WOKING (DETAINED BOY)

Lieut.-Colonel Upton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why a 14 year-old boy has been detained at a remand home in Woking since 9th May.

Mr. Ede: It is within the discretion of the justices to remand and to grant or refuse bail and it would not be proper for me to give the reasons for, or to comment on, their action.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Home Secretary aware that as a direct consequence of the heartless remanding in custody for over four weeks of a 14 year-old schoolboy, whose parents live in my constituency, he has contracted an infectious disease as a result of which he is now in an isolation hospital? What steps will my right hon. Friend take to overcome this evil and quite disgusting cat and mouse method of dispensing justice in our magistrates' courts?

Mr. Ede: The boy is at present in hospital, but, as I said, it is not for me to comment on this action.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I press my right hon. Friend to give us this assurance: will this lad when he recovers from the infectious disease which he contracted in this remand home, where he was for over four weeks, be sent from the isolation hospital back to the remand home for a further period of custody, or will he be allowed to stay at home with his parents until the case is tried, preferably by other justices not so clearly unfitted to sit on the bench?

Mr. Ede: That is not a matter for me. The Royal prerogative, on the use of which I am responsible for making recommendations, does not apply to remands.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-POLICE CONSTABLE (X-RAY)

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why ex-police constable Dance, No. 111230, who was injured in the execution of his duties on 14th June, 1947, was not X-rayed despite repeated complaints, until five months later.

Mr. Ede: In March, 1949, Mr. Dance was found unfit for further police duty and was granted a pension with effect from 26th April, 1949. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that between the night of 13th-14th June, 1947, when Mr. Dance was injured, and 3rd November, 1947, when an X-ray examination was ordered by the Chief Medical Officer, Mr. Dance made no complaint which would have made an earlier X-ray examination advisable, and I can find no grounds for any suggestion that there was delay or neglect in arranging for appropriate treatment.

Mr. Price: Is it not a fact that when the X-ray was eventually taken it disclosed serious injuries to the spine, including a fractured posterior neural arch, subluxation of the fourth lumbar vertebrae on to the fifth and some forward displacement of the spine. In view of the serious nature of these injuries was not a delay of nearly five months quite unforgivable?

Mr. Ede: As soon as the complaint was made, the necessary steps were taken to ascertain the extent of the injury.

Mr. Price: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, and the serious injustice done to Mr. Dance, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SECURITY)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to co-ordinate the security precautions of all Departments.

The Prime Minister: Effective arrangements are already in force for co-ordinating security precautions in Government Departments.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the Prime Minister say whether this arrangement comes under a common executive authority rather than a responsible authority like himself?

The Prime Minister: Every Department is responsible for security and there is an inter-Departmental committee which coordinates that activity and gives advice.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the case of the Foreign Office there is reason for believing that security regulations are too stringent, and that it would be a good thing for this country if more of their officials disappeared?

Mr. Baker White: Would the Prime Minister not agree that both the Pontecorvo case and the more recent case of the disappearing diplomats show that there is a very serious time lag between the time when the local security officers and the central authority can act together on security matters in co-operation with the security departments of other countries.

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask a Question about a detailed case perhaps he will put it on the Order Paper.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the committee mentioned is a committee with executive authority, or a committee acting in an advisory capacity for all Departments?

The Prime Minister: I have already explained that the Departments are responsible for taking action for their

security, and that the inter-Departmental committee is advisory. It would be quite a mistake to try to lift the responsibility from the individual Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC CORPORATIONS (INQUIRIES)

Mr. Perkins: asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of the Government with regard to the holding of periodical reviews of the public corporations.

The Prime Minister: There is nothing that I could usefully add to the full statement which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made on 25th October last in the course of the general debate on socialised industries.

Mr. Perkins: Is the Prime Minister aware that there has been no inquiry into B.O.A.C. for 12 years, although it has been a socialised or nationalised industry? Is it not highly desirable that there should be an open inquiry in the case of B.O.A.C. as in the case of the B.B.C.?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member knows very well that B.O.A.C. was not responsible for its revenue and expenditure until 1st April, 1946, and that normal operations did not begin until 1947. There have been internal inquiries, and it would be a mistake to have another inquiry at the present time.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread feeling throughout the country about these nationalised industries and corporations, which represent an important section of our economic life over which the House, which represents the shareholders, has practically no control whatever? As this is a problem of the first magnitude, will he cause an inquiry to be made with a view to setting up the necessary machinery by which there can be control?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the debate I have mentioned and the speech made by the Foreign Secretary. As a matter of fact, there is more power to inquire into this section of industry than into private industry.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: If the right hon. Gentleman be right in saying there is more power to inquire into this section of industry than private industry, would he give serious consideration to an inquiry


into the transport industry? Is he aware that that industry, quite apart from losing money and putting up prices, is now in the position where it is actually refusing traffics, to the great damage of our rearmament programme and all our export trade?

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Prime Minister aware that, from an entirely different point of view from that expressed by hon. Members opposite, people who work in publicly controlled industries are becoming very concerned about the sabotage that is going on by those supporting hon. Members opposite, in order to undermine the publicly controlled industries and bring them into disrepute?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (D.D.T. SPRAYING)

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent his officials use D.D.T. as a summer spray; and if he is satisfied that no injurious effects are caused on beneficial insects by the use of this method.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Approximately 30,000 acres of potatoes in the south-east and east of England are sprayed annually with D.D.T. as a preventive measure against Colorado beetle. D.D.T. is also officially recommended for use in late spring or early summer to control a number of pests of other crops. If the advice given about proper use is followed there is little or no danger to beneficial insects.

Mr. G. Williams: Will the Minister explain why his horticultural advisers recommend that D.D.T. should not be used after the end of April if his officials use it as a summer spray?

Mr. Williams: My own officials do everything they can, in leaflets and Press notices, to warn the public against spraying open blossom so that bees and other pollinating insects are not killed.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is not the way poison is being squirted all over the place in these days very alarming, and is it not more important to go into the reasons for these pests rather than try to destroy them after they have arrived?

Mr. Williams: There are all sorts of poisons other than D.D.T.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP (K. STRAUSS AND A. RAIDL)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
59. Mr. PETER FREEMAN,—To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has received and considered the report from the Committee on Deprivation of Citizenship on Karl Strauss and Antonin Raidl; and what action he has decided to take in these cases.

Mr. Ede: With permission, Sir, I would like to answer Question No. 59.
I have considered the reports of the Committee, and have made orders depriving both men of their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. Freeman: In view of the publicity which this case has had, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is another man, named Weisskopf, who was mentioned in the proceedings of this Committee? Is not this man also a naturalised Czech, and has he not been deprived of his citizenship of this country? Is there any evidence or information that he was associated with the activities which led to the proceedings by which Strauss was deprived of citizenship?

Mr. Ede: I have no reason to suppose that Weisskopf was asociated with Strauss in any discreditable activities. The fact that his name was mentioned by Strauss in the proceedings should not be held against him.

Mr. Marlowe: What will be the effect of all this on the man Strauss, who is said to be in this country? Is he to be allowed to remain here?

Mr. Ede: I shall have to consider what ought to be done with him. He is certainly not now a British subject.

Sir Herbert Williams: What is the position of a man who is living in this country and who is now apparently stateless? I believe that Strauss was here last night, but I did not meet him and I do not know him. Surely we must be careful that we do not put a man into what I might call a complete national vacuum.

Mr. Ede: When people come to this country and we admit them to the high privilege of British citizenship, and they


so misbehave themselves as to be recommended by this Committee for deprivation of citizenship, I am bound to say that is a matter which they should have taken into consideration before they committed the acts which place them in that position.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: In view of Strauss's expulsion for espionage will the right hon. Gentleman see that he leaves the country again as soon as possible?

Mr. Ede: There are difficulties about that, including those raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). I am well aware of the danger that this man presents to the security of this country. I shall take such steps as are open to me to protect the country.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the fact that this man has been deprived of British citizenship increases or decreases his prospect of employment in the Festival of Britain, which he is said to be seeking?

Mr. Ede: I should have thought that the advertisement which the hon. Gentleman has given to the application would help to secure its being turned down.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this man has ever been accused of any criminal offence and whether, if he has, he will be prosecuted in the usual way?

Mr. Ede: This man had an opportunity of defending himself, which he took, before the Committee, where he was represented by solicitor and counsel. If he has committed a crime in this country for which he can be brought before a court, I have no doubt that appropriate action will be taken.

Sir H. Williams: I do not know this man Strauss, but I have some sympathy with the rights of human beings. Can this man sue? Can he be sued? Is he an outlaw? What is he? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not make a decision of principle because of a particularly bad case?

Mr. Ede: I am not making any decision of principle. Every one of these cases is considered on its merits. Strauss is in exactly the same position today as any other person within the Realm who is not a British subject.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that other people have suffered enormous mischief and injury by their involuntary association with this case? If any offence has ever been alleged, an ordinary criminal offence, against this man, ought not a charge be properly formulated and properly investigated? If he has not committed any such offence, why should innocent third parties be left to bear and suffer injury for which they appear to have no remedy of any kind?

Mr. Ede: This man mentioned Mr. Weisskopf in the course of his evidence before the Committee, and that is how Mr. Weisskopf's name came to be associated with his. I hope that what I have said today indicates that there is no ground for holding that against Mr. Weisskopf.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA (ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL COMPANY)

Mr. Eden: (by Private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make about the situation in Persia.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The delegation from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which has gone to Teheran for discussions with the Persian Government has had preliminary interviews with the Persian Prime Minister and certain of his colleagues. Unfortunately, without awaiting the results of the discussions with the Company's representatives in Teheran, a committee consisting of three Persian Government representatives has issued in Abadan a proclamation to the effect that all the staff of the Company are now considered employees of the Persian Government, and has presented certain demands to the Company's general manager in the oilfields.
The demands were that he should hand over, first, the organisation charts of the industry; second, a statement of oil export sales proceeds from the date on which the Persian Oil Nationalisation Law was passed, and third, 75 per cent. of all money received either in Persia or in London on account of sales of oil from the 12th June onwards. The general manager asked for these demands to be


put in writing, and said he would refer them to his head office.
His Majesty's Ambassador at Teheran has called the attention of the Persian Government to the possibility that serious disturbances might arise in the oilfields as a result of anti-British propaganda broadcast from Teheran, and will now protest also against the activities of the three-man committee, at which His Majesty's Government are particularly concerned. It is obvious that the discussions in Teheran cannot proceed properly if the atmosphere is vitiated by precipitate Persian action in the oilfields.

Mr. Eden: I think the whole House will concur with the right hon. Gentleman's concluding sentence. May I ask him whether there has been any reply to the representation about propaganda by the Persian Government? Would the Foreign Secretary remind that Government that it is impossible for any company to carry on negotiations such as they themselves have suggested if the negotiations have to be put through in a tirade of villification and abuse which has no foundation in fact whatsoever?

Mr. Morrison: I think the answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is in the negative. As to the second part, I fully agree with the point that he has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN NEGOTIATIONS (SUDAN)

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice)asked whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has any statement to make about negotiations with Egypt in respect of the Sudan

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to make any statement at present.

Mr. Eden: Did the right hon. Gentleman see the reports in the Press yesterday, in "The Times" among others, of the satisfaction of the Foreign Secretary of State in Egypt after the result of a conference, when he told reporters that the British Note held out high hopes of solving the Sudan question? May I ask the Foreign Secretary to give us at any rate an assurance that there has been no

departure from the previous statement of the Government about British policy in respect of the Sudan, that is to say, that our undertakings and our engagements are to the people of the Sudan?

Mr. Morrison: It is well known that the Government take the view that the wishes of the people of the Sudan must be a very very prominent consideration in our minds. In any case, the undertaking that I previously gave as to the defence aspects about consulting the House would apply equally.

Mr. Eden: I should like to get this clear. I think I understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean that before an arrangement is come to about the Sudan the House will be informed and we shall have an opportunity to discuss it.

Mr. Morrison: If the right hon. Gentleman looks up—

Mr. Eden: I have tried to, but I cannot find it.

Mr. Morrison: —the fairly lengthy interchange I had across the Floor of the House, he will find that the undertaking I gave in respect of the defence discussions applies equally to the Sudan consideration.

Mr. Eden: What were those undertakings? Were they that we should be consulted before the final arrangement was made? I have looked, but I cannot find it.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The undertaking was that the country is not committed until ratification has taken place, and I will see that the House is given the opportunity at the right point to intervene, before that final stage is reached.

Mr. Gammans: So that there is no misunderstanding, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any departure from the principles about the Sudan which his predecessor enunciated in the House, with the general approval of all sides, on more than one occasion? Has there been any departure whatsoever from those principles?

Mr. Morrison: These discussions are going on both sides, and I do not think that I ought at this stage to add to the statement I have made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House the business for next week?

Mr. Ede: Discussions have taken place in regard to the progress in Committee on the Finance Bill and the Government are prepared, in the general interests of the House, to afford more time for the Committee stage of the Bill on Monday and Tuesday of next week.
The Finance Bill, as the House is aware, must receive the Royal Assent by 5th August and leave this House not later than the early days of July. The Committee stage has yet to be completed, and an interval must be allowed before proceeding with the Report stage and then the Third Reading.
If the arrangement which we propose is generally accepted in all parts of the House we hope that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill will be concluded on Tuesday night, without unduly late Sittings tonight, on Monday and Tuesday.
The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 18TH JUNE—Third Reading of the Coal Industry Bill; and Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

TUESDAY, 19TH JUNE—Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 20TH JUNE—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill; Second Reading of the Telephone Bill; and consideration of the draft Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Dental Goods) Order.

THURSDAY, 21ST JUNE—Second Reading of the Ministry of Materials Bill, which will be presented tomorrow, Friday, and also made available tomorrow (it is also proposed to publish an explanatory White Paper for the convenience of the House); Second Reading of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Bill; and Committee stage of Money Resolutions for both Bills.

FRIDAY, 22ND JUNE—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Clement Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last week I asked him whether he would consider affording time, as soon as possible, for the

consideration of a Motion standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends relating to the banishment of Tshekedi Khama, and asking that the order should be rescinded, or, at any rate, that there should be an impartial inquiry? Has he any further statement to make about that?

Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that since then we have been very largely engaged in discussions on the Finance Bill and consideration as to its future. I have still got the matter in mind, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would renew his question next week.

Mr. Eden: Meanwhile, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, although we have put no Motion down, it is a matter many aspects of which we consider ought to be examined by the House as a whole, and we should be grateful if the Government could find time to enable some discussion to take place before too long.

Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. Gentleman alluding to the matter referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies)?

Mr. Eden: Yes.

Mr. Ede: I will bear that in mind.

Mr. Thurtle: Does my right hon. Friend assume from the silence of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and his supporters that they accept the time-table he has laid down for the Finance Bill?

Mr. Ede: Some questions and answers took place on this matter yesterday, and what happened yesterday gave one reasonable grounds for continuing to hope. I do not think that I can be expected to say more than that at the moment.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I might just say that the condition of the patient is as well as can be expected.

Mr. C. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will have observed that there is another Motion standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends asking that a Select Committee be appointed to consider Standing Order No. 31. He will also have observed that in that Motion there is no reflection whatsoever, either


implied or expressed, about any decision that has been made from the Chair. It merely asks that a Select Committee be appointed to consider Standing Order No. 31, to see whether any changes are needed and to report to the House.

Mr. Ede: There is also on the Order Paper another Motion in the names of certain other hon. Gentlemen, which I think can be taken as a Motion of censure on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means.
[That this House views with concern the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means so to exercise his powers of selection as to exclude Amendments to Clause 1 of the Finance Bill, which would have permitted the House to debate and pronounce upon specific burdens imposed upon individuals and industries.]
Personally, I should be reluctant to proceed with the general issue until that matter has been disposed of.

Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving time for consideration of the Treasury Minute which, I understand, will be laid today. It was announced yesterday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), to the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has authorised an increase under the Currency and Bank Notes Act of £50 million in currency issue which, when reflected in bank credits, will mean an expansion of £500 million of the credit basis of this country. As the apparent policy of His Majesty's Government is to stop inflation, and as this is the biggest piece of inflation that has happened for a long time—

Mr. Speaker: What has this to do with the business for next week? I cannot see what it has to do with it. It seems to be an argument.

Sir H. Williams: The Treasury Minute has not yet been published, Sir. It should have been presented forthwith to the House, but there has been two days' delay. There has been only a Written answer and most hon. Members will not be familiar with the point I am raising, and that is why I have indulged in this explanation. Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an opportunity to

discuss this vital matter of inflation, which is affecting the whole of the people of Britain?

Mr. Ede: I understand that this matter was discussed in the Budget debate.

Sir H. Williams: No. The Minute was only signed on Tuesday.

Mr. Ede: I am told that this is consequential on something that was said during the Budget debate. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to answer straight away on the question of finding time for it, but when I see the Minute I will take it into consideration.

Mr. Daines: Can my right hon. Friend so arrange the business of the House that hon. Members who rely on their Parliamentary salary can go outside and buy food at reasonable prices?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman announced that the last business on Wednesday would be consideration of the Draft Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Dental Goods) Order. I assume that steps will be taken to see that the promised White Paper is published early next week so that we shall have a chance of reading it before this Order is taken, otherwise I do not think it would be quite fair to the House.

Mr. Ede: I understand that every effort is being made to get this White Paper published. It will be published not later than Tuesday.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the Motion standing in my name and that of 74 of my hon. Friends relating to the withdrawal of the summer train services? Will any time be given at an early date for discussion of that Motion? There is also another Motion signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House in somewhat similar terms.

Mr. Ede: I understand that there are still some 10 Supply Days left, and I should have thought that that was a matter that might very well be discussed on one of those.

Sir Ian Fraser: In view of the fact that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is running into next week, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he expects that the Report stage and Third


Reading will be taken in the week commencing 25th June, as would have been previously expected, or a week later?

Mr. Ede: I think we had better see how we get on with the arrangements that have been announced today.

PROLONGED SITTINGS (QUESTION TIME)

Mr. Spence: I beg leave to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you can give a Ruling on the following matter: whether the order of rotation of Ministers answering Questions which were on the Order Paper for Tuesday, 12th June, when Question Time lapsed, may remain unaltered on Tuesday, 19th June?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I am afraid not. This is really impossible. If done in this case it would inflict hardship on all hon. Members who originally put down Questions for Tuesday, 19th June. Moreover, the same thing would apply on any day when Question Time is lost by the previous day's Sitting running on beyond 2.30. When such long Sittings occur, many difficulties arise and disappoint some hon. Members. That cannot be prevented without damnifying others. I am very sympathetic to that fact, but I think it would cause a precedent which would be undesirable.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is it not the case, Mr. Speaker, that if it is not done it will cause great hardship to Scottish Members who had 44 Questions on the Order Paper? Is it not a great injustice to Scotland that these important Questions should not be dealt with on the Floor of the House at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Lady that I am very sorry myself. I was looking forward to those 44 Questions. [Laughter.] I have no doubt that Scotland would have set a good example in the way of supplementary questions, but I cannot alter my decision.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does this not emphasise the appeal made by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] If the course adopted by the Leader of the House had not been adopted, it would have allowed those Questions to be put. Will you do your utmost, Mr. Speaker, to see that an opportunity is given in future for a break in Business to allow Questions to be taken?

Mr. Speaker: So far, I have no official knowledge of what happened. Until the Committee has reported to me, I am not supposed to know. I can assure right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies that if I can do anything for Scotland in this way, I certainly will do it, because I do not want them to be treated hardly.

Sir I. Fraser: Are you aware, Sir, that there are more Members of Parliament for Lancashire than Scotland?

Mr. M. MacMillan: In view of the smothering of so many Scottish Questions in the early hours of last week, and while I am aware that the Secretary of Scotland does not surface to top priority for at least six weeks, can you, Mr. Speaker, give a slightly unconstitutional assurance that you will be tolerant over a large number of supplementary questions? There will be many Scottish Questions to other Ministries on the Order Paper next week.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member ought not to ask me what I shall do in advance. All I can say is that I will try to cast a favourable eye, even though I come from just the wrong side of the Border from the Scottish point of view.

Mr. Colegate: We all sympathise with the Scottish Members. Could not the Secretary of State for Scotland be allowed to meet the Scottish Members in the Scottish Grand Committee and answer their Questions there?

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if we might close this discussion now, because there is an important statement coming.

H.M. SUBMARINE "AFFRAY" (LOCATION)

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Sir, I should like to inform the House that a signal has been received from H.M.S. "Reclaim," the diving vessel, this afternoon that the submarine "Affray" has been found. From the position given in the signal she is lying near the edge of Hurd Deep in about 200 feet of water. This position is about 40 miles southwest of "Affray's" diving position. This marks the end of a long and difficult search which has been in progress since 17th April.

Mr. Spence: Is there any hope of recovering the hull from that depth of water for purposes of examination?

Mr. Callaghan: I have no more information than is given in the signal. A layman's point of view would be that it is a difficult job at that depth.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 13th June.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

New Clause.—(EXTENSION OF TIME IN RELATION TO RELIEF FROM INCOME TAX AND THE PROFITS TAX FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON REHABILITATION.)

Subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Finance Act, 1947 (which allows relief from income tax and the profits tax for certain capital expenditure on rehabilitation), shall have effect as if in the proviso thereto (which, as set out in section thirty-three of the Finance Act, 1948, extends in certain cases till not later than the end of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, the period within which the expenditure must have been incurred if the relief is to be given) for the words "the end of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two," there were substituted the words "the end of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-four."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.56 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Edwards): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to extend from 31st March, 1952, to 31st March, 1954, the time limit within which capital expenditure on post-war rehabilitation must be carried out in order to qualify for allowance as an expense in computing profits for the purposes of Income Tax and Profits Tax. Hon. Members will have noted that there is, in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), the suggested new Clause concerning the extension of time in relation to relief from excess profits tax for terminal expenses. That Clause has points in common with this one, and it might be convenient if I say now that I hope we shall be able to meet them when we come to it.
Perhaps I should point out that in this Clause reference is made only to rehabilitation costs of a capital nature. The reason is that repairs, and other rehabilitation costs of a revenue nature, are allowable expenses for Income Tax and Profits Tax on ordinary tax principles without any question of time. Originally, under the Finance Act, 1947, the time


limit for carrying out this work was the end of 1949. It was later extended by the Finance Act, 1948, to the end of March, 1952. In view of our present economic circumstances, more particularly of the re-armament programme, we think it is reasonable to have a further extension of two years within which these costs may be brought to account.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I desire to say a word or two on this Clause because it was in answer to Amendments which I put upon the Order Paper in 1948 that certain concessions were made on these matters. As the Economic Secretary has said, this represents a concession which we on these benches feel is reasonable in the circumstances of the day.
There are one or two questions I wish to ask. I see that in the 1947 Act rehabilitation costs include expenditure on the removal of works designed to afford protection from hostile attack. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the subsection in question deal with the cost of moving businesses from one place to another and the cost of adapting plant and machinery. I take it that it is only rehabilitation work related to the last war which is covered by the Clause.

Mr. J. Edwards: Mr. J. Edwards indicated assent.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: Of course, a certain amount of this sort of thing is going on at the present time in connection with possible hostile attacks which nobody desires or, indeed, anticipates. I should like to know whether the Government have in view any similar sort of work of that nature. That is, perhaps, a rather general question which may be outside the scope of the new Clause but, in view of the width of the definition, I wondered whether work to be carried out will come within the terms of the definition.
The second point I should like to raise is whether the hon. Gentleman could tell us what is the extent of this problem at the present time. One rather likes to follow up these matters when one has been trying to watch them over a period of years. Have many of these statements of particulars been coming in? Is there a great deal more work to be done. Does he consider that this concession will see the end of it? Can he give a little

further information about how this matter has been progressing since we first dealt with it in the Finance Acts of 1947 and 1948?

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: Like everyone else, I am glad that this concession has been made, but I cannot help wondering whether a concession made in this form at this stage is quite as satisfactory as it would have been if the same concession had been made two years ago. I would take the question a little further: is the present form of the concession altogether wise? I am not quite sure that I like to see a specific date limit in this concession. I cannot see the point of having it.
Surely it would have been wiser if something had been inserted to make it quite clear that before the allowances were brought to an end, or before the period within which they would be made was brought to an end, notice of either two or three years would be given. That would have dealt with the position on a far more satisfactory and commonsense basis. After all, the reason the extension is given at all is the practical difficulty, to a large degree, of having the necessary work performed.
Are we now trying to think as we should have been thinking in different circumstances, and certainly as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was thinking two years ago? In 1951 we cannot afford to think in terms of 1948–49. I am not at all sure that we shall not confuse the position as far as it concerns work which various people may be called upon to perform if the national situation does not improve. What is the position, for instance, if some of the work has been done but, in view of the national position, it has to be undone and the war-time condition of building reinstituted; or where the buildings are taken and have to be dealt with in a suitable way to meet storage, manufacturing, conditioning and packaging requirements for stockpiling of food or stores?
I should have thought that, with the possibility of that sort of thing happening in 1951, it would have been much wiser to have left out altogether any specific date of termination and to have dealt with the matter the other way round—to have given an undertaking that two or three


years' notice would be given. I ask that that aspect of the matter be considered and that that form be adopted instead of the form of naming a specific date, such as is contained in the Clause.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: May I join in the thanks which have been expressed for this concession, which will be greatly appreciated and which is, indeed, justly due? In the meantime I should like the Economic Secretary to consider whether the date to which this extension will be allowed should continue to be limited—and that arises from what my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing) has just said. Will he not consider bringing together more closely the accounts which the Inland Revenue, for computations of tax, compel companies to keep and the accounts which the chartered accountants certify as being a correct view of the company's affairs?
The position of the chartered accountant has been very greatly strengthened as a result of the last Companies Act, and I should have thought that the Treasury were now in a position—even if they were not in the position before—to say definitely that they are prepared to accept as correct the sets of accounts which are prepared and certified as correct. If the chartered accountant says that certain expenditure of this character is of a revenue nature, and allows that amount to be put to revenue expenditure and not to capital expenditure, it seems to me that the Treasury and the Inland Revenue have all the safeguards that they need in such a case.
It seems fantastic to me that companies should be keeping, under the expressed instructions of the Inland Revenue, two sets of accounts—one which is true and one which is not true but which must be kept in accordance with some very out-of-date regulations maintained by the Inland Revenue. If one set of accounts could be kept, recognised as being a true picture of the affairs of the company at that date, it would be clearly right for the Inland Revenue to base their tax computations upon those accounts and there would be no need for additional sets of accounts for such computations.
In the meantime, this is a plea for an extension of the terms of this concession so that it may run not in terms of years but in terms of correctness and validity

by the certification of a competent audit. Will the hon. Gentleman consider that?

Mr. J. Edwards: I will answer very quickly, dealing first of all with the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I agree with his view about the works which are covered here; we are concerned with work required to be done as at 31st December, 1946. As for the general point he made, he must leave that with me, for I need notice of such a point. I have no definite information, but I am advised that there is not much more work still to be done. My right hon. Friend felt, in all the circumstances, that it would be right to meet the arguments advanced by putting down this new Clause. I think two years will probably be long enough, but if it were found that it was not long enough, then of course the matter could be reconsidered.
As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), in a sense that arises only indirectly from the Clause. If he will leave it with me, I will look at the matter and let him know my views.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I am sure we are grateful for the Economic Secretary's extremely painstaking reply. In the year 1951 it is a little difficult to discuss a rather technical matter which received so much attention two years ago. I have before me the OFFICIAL REPORT of the discussion on Sir Stafford Cripps' first Budget, which was later embodied in the Finance Bill, 1948, when the Paymaster-General of the day, now the Minister of Health, said that the purpose of the new Clause moved on that occasion was to extend to March, 1952, the time limit in which capital expenditure on post-war rehabilitation must be incurred if it were to qualify for relief from Income Tax and Profits Tax, and he paid a tribute to questions by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who was as active then as he has been this afternoon.
I shall not weary the Committee with long quotations when many hon. Members' thoughts on money are elsewhere. I understand that the quadruped favoured by many on this side of the Committee ran into second place, which must not be taken as an augury for a future political event. The present Minister of


Health said on that occasion that the large bulk of the particulars had already been supplied by March. That was in 1948. I wonder whether the Economic Secretary can tell us what the cost of these operations has been to date. I do not know whether he has the figure, but it would be of great convenience to give it, perhaps in answer to a Question on the Order Paper, because it seems that without that information the story is incomplete.

Mr. J. Edwards: I will see whether I can do that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(DRIED AND CRYSTALLIZED FIGS.)

(1) For the entry in the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1876, relating to figs (under which there is charged a duty of seven shillings a hundredweight) there shall be substituted the following entry:—




Per cwt.


"Figs—

s.
d.


dried
…
6
0


drained or crystallized
…
7
0."

(2) In section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1916 (which provides for drawback of certain of the duties under the said Act of 1876), after the words "dried figs" there shall be inserted the words "drained or crystallized figs."

(3) This section shall come into force on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.—[Mr. Bottomley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause gives effect to the Torquay agreement. Normally this change of duty would be carried out by means of Treasury order, but because it is a Revenue duty it is necessary to bring it forward in the Finance Bill. The reduction in duty arose as a result of talks with Turkey, in particular, where we were able to get satisfactory concessions in return for the concession we made. There is not a large Commonwealth interest in this subject, but consultation did take place before this agreement was reached.

Mr. Eccles: It seems to me to be an open question whether there ought to be a tariff on figs at all. Here is

a wholesome, appetising foodstuff beneficial to children and adults alike, and in maintaining the tariff on it one wonders what is the Government's view of our food supply and the cost of living. We do not grow the figs here in competition with those which are imported. The figs we grow here are luxurious.
Beneath his ample leaf the luscious Fig…
the poet says. We cannot get hold of those; they are too expensive.
On the other hand, I understand, the great bulk of the import of dried figs comes from Greece and Turkey, so there is no need for Imperial Preference here. This is a question of whether we should have a Revenue tariff on a foodstuff, and the effect of the tariff is to limit the supply and put up the price. During the war Lord Woolton turned to Portugal for figs and bought quite a fair quantity of figs from that country, because the noble Lord realised it was a very attractive supplement to a hard diet. But, since the war, the Ministry of Food have not bought any figs from Portugal and the figures, I have been told, show a steady decline in the total import of dried figs. In 1948 the import was 286,000 cwt.; in 1949, 124,000 cwt., and in 1950, 84,000 cwt. Now figs are de-controlled and perhaps private enterprise may be able to do better.
4.15 p.m.
I ask the Secretary for Overseas Trade whether this tariff, in his view, is a handicap or not to the purchase of figs. I would especially like him to consider the fact that the Germans are back in the market for this sort of goods. The situation is made more difficult for our people because of the failure of the Australian crop of dried fruit, and therefore we shall not get so much of this kind of fruit as in normal years.
The fig is a tasty supplement which the housewife can use to eke out the very miserable rations we have for the main course meal. She is at her wits' end to provide the main course for her family and if she is to stifle their complaints at the resistant and stringy bit of meat she has to serve up in the first course, she needs something for "afters." Can she get a sufficient supply of sugar to make puddings and cakes? No, Sir, she cannot. Can she get tinned fruit? Tinned


fruit is very scare, due to the muddle and incompetence of His Majesty's Ministers.
Here is a chance to do away with a tariff which I see was put on in 1876. I should have thought that the Labour Party would rejoice to say they have been able to clear away something put on in 1876. But not at all. The tariff was brought up by Turkey, and they decided to reimpose it with a one shilling reduction. I take the view that it lights up the hypocrisy of the Government in talking about reducing the cost of living. They blame wholesalers and middlemen and say that they take too much out of the final price of food before it gets into the housewife's basket, yet here they are taking the first rake-off on figs, which we cannot grow at home. The Minister says he must have a tariff on figs. Our answer is, a fig for his tariff.

Mr. Frederic Harris: While associating myself fully with my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) and fully understanding the value of the importation of dried fruit, I cannot see the point of the addition "drained or crystallised." because the sale of figs in this country is virtually all of dried figs. While there might be a certain reasonable allowance for drained figs, I cannot see the need for permitting crystallised figs to come in on this basis. Why should we go to the exorbitant cost of importing crystallised figs when obviously we can do the crystallising in this country for the limited amount for which there would be a demand?
I ask the Minister to enlarge on this, because I should like to know the purpose of adding these words. I can fully understand the reference to dried figs, for which naturally there is a very ready market. There could not be anything better to import in a concentrated form into this country. While agreeing in every way with my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham, I cannot see who has been behind the scenes in suggesting the addition of "drained or crystallised" figs and why they should come in at all. I would particularly remark, in regard to crystallised figs, that I cannot see what real need there can possibly be for that classification. I do not know what the real purpose is, and why it should have been raised in this instance. I should like to know something about it.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I ask the hon. Gentleman to clear up one question, namely, the matter of Imperial Preference. What is the exact extent of it, and to what extent do we import figs from the Colonies and Dominions? What is the value of the Preference? Could the hon. Gentleman give us some information on that point?

Mr. Bottomley: The figures are not substantial but the Commonwealth countries nevertheless put great store or value on any tariff which is imposed for preferential reasons. Although I said that this is a Revenue duty, it is now primarily imposed for preferential purposes. I do not think we should to lightly dismiss it in order to meet our own domestic requirements. When we negotiate with another country we do not want to do away with duties that we impose without getting some return. We feel that in this case we have made a bargain with Turkey which gives benefits to both sides. If the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) suggests that we should lower the duty, and encourages us further, in the next round of tariff negotiations we shall bear that in mind and try to get further concessions for the reductions which we make.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Frederic Harris) asked a question about the expression "drained or crystallised." "Crystallised" is contained in the 1876 Act under which these duties were first introduced under the general heading of "Dried." What happens as a result of this change is the establishment of a differentiation in the duty now applying to both classes of this commodity.

Mr. Eccles: It is suggested that a big Imperial question is involved here. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what proportion of our imports of figs has ever come from areas covered by Imperial Preference?

Mr. Bottomley: I said that the proportion is small, if there are any such imports at all. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth countries concerned feel it is of advantage to them to have this amount of Preference. We are all hoping to have increased and new production of all kinds in the Commonwealth, and to refrain from doing something which will in a way encourage that development would, I should have


thought, be the last thing which the hon. Member for Chippenham wanted.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: We have considerable difficulty, which we have experienced in past years, in finding Turkish products that we can buy in exchange for what we try to export to Turkey. That has been a matter which has called for the exercise of a great deal of ingenuity. We have attempted to increase the import of Turkish tobacco. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has said, it is patent that there has been a continuous decline in the import of figs for a certain number of years. That is not because people in this country have not been anxious to buy figs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will indicate what is the reason for this decline, and will say whether the purpose of this concession is in part to stimulate the import of figs.
If the measure of the attempts to stimulate trade, and trade with Turkey at present, is a concession of one-seventh of the Import Duty on figs, it does not look as if the Government have got very far with Turkey at Torquay. I hope they will have another look at this matter and see whether more strenuous attempts cannot be made to increase our trade with that country. Can the hon. Gentleman give any other indication of what steps along these lines were taken, and what emerged by way of concessions on Turkey's side as a result of this concession?

Captain Crookshank: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is treating the Committee very well today. Even if he thought that because the subject matter was rather a small one which he could get through the Committee very easily, he does not seem to have come adequately armed with the figures and information which I feel sure every Member would like to have before finally making up his or her mind on this subject.
I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman expounding his case. He pointed out that it fell to him to bring this matter before the Committee because it was a trade matter, but that as it was a Revenue duty it had to come within the Finance Bill. That is why we are discussing it at all; otherwise, other procedure would have had to be followed. That being so, it is all the more reasonable

that in a debate which is a financial debate we should know the full implications of what is being done.
Unless I misheard the hon. Gentleman—and I do not think I did—he said nothing about what the volume of this trade was on the Imperial or Turkish side. All I understood him to say was that this proposal was the result of the conference at Torquay, a good many of the activities of which are still shrouded in considerable mystery, and have certainly not yet had the full consideration of the House, which some day it will probably require to give.
I understood that some arrangements had been come to with Turkey and that this concession was our part of the bargain. If a bargain has been made in our name, we shall of course have to be very chary before doing anything to overthrow a bargain honourably entered into; but when we are discussing a new bargain it would have been quite reasonable to tell us what was the other side of the picture. What are the concessions which have come in from either Turkey or Greece? I did not understand that Greece was making any concessions. The hon. Gentleman mentioned only Turkey in that regard but he had in the course of his short remarks referred to both countries. If, as I gather, it is only Turkey, it is, presumably, comparatively easy to tell us what benefit we can hope to derive from this proposal.
We are dealing with a foodstuff or a medicine—I do not know for which purpose it is in volume, mostly used—but it is something which enters into consumption pretty widely in this country. Most people enjoy figs. I do not know whether they enjoy drained figs as much as other kinds; I am quite at a loss to know what a drained fig is. Assuming that it is the same sort of thing and tastes the same, I suppose it would be equally agreeable to consumers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Syrup."] If it is syrup, why does not the new Clause say so? That is a word which is understood by the people, whereas I am certain that "drained fig" is not understood by most people, certainly the majority of the humble housewives of the country.
Before we leave this new Clause, which may or may not be a good one, and which we may or may not be forced to accept because it is part of a bargain, I ask the


hon. Gentleman to amplify what he has told us and let us have the picture before us. He made some reference to Imperial Preference but he did not tell us what the proportion of trade was. If he can tell us, without inconvenience, I should like to know, first, what are our total imports of figs, and what proportion of that total comes from Imperial sources and benefits from Imperial Preference, and what proportion comes from Turkey? Having told us that, would the hon. Member add what benefits we are to receive from Turkey in respect of what is, presumably, a concession, largely to them?
I hope that this may be, I will not say a lesson but an occasion as the result of which the hon. Gentleman will remind himself on future occasions that when a discussion on a change of Revenue duties is opened in the debate on the Finance Bill, it is important that the Committee should be put in possession, as early as possible in the debate, of the full facts, because debates tend to be prolonged if the information has to be drawn seriatim from the Minister.

4.30 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There could be only two reasons for not doing away with this duty altogether. The first reason would be if Turkey gave us no reciprocity at all or gave us an inadequate advantage in their own market, and the second would be if the Dominions and Colonies had made substantial representations and they had a fig project which they wished to expand with a view to finding an entrance into the British market.
On the point about Turkey, the hon. Gentleman said absolutely nothing. What are we trying to get into Turkey in increasing quantities which the Turks have been reluctant to concede so that this duty is reduced by only 1s. instead of 7s.? Will the hon. Gentleman not explain in more detail what he said about the Imperial Preference aspect? Is there a fig project or is it just a figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination?
When the hon. Gentleman spoke of being under pressure from a negligible agricultural unit in the Dominions, did he mean that there is, in fact, nothing at all, that they are not growing figs and that they do not intend to do so, or that there

is a little organisation starting up in some distant quarter of the world where high hopes are entertained that one fine day it may be able to satisfy the requirements of the British market? Unless the hon. Gentleman can satisfy us on those two distinct points about our exports to Turkey and about this unit of production in the Dominions, we ought to refuse the Clause.

Mr. Marlowe: I wish to protest against the manner in which the Minister put the matter before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman merely said "This is something that was decided at Torquay and, therefore, I want the Committee to pass it." Parliament does not exist for putting a rubber stamp on what the hon. Gentleman does at Torquay. It is characteristic of the way in which this Government treats Parliament, by making decisions elsewhere and expecting us to endorse them. The hon. Gentleman has given us no information why we should endorse the action which he took at Torquay; indeed, we are very suspicious of a great deal that took place at Torquay. We should like more information about it.
The hon. Gentleman further said that this duty was necessary as a result of a bargain made with Turkey. That is all the hon. Gentleman had to say about it. What was the bargain made with Turkey? Are we not entitled to know what was the bargain which we are being asked to implement? Does he think it is enough to come here and say, "I have made a bargain and you have got to follow it up"?
I protest at this manner in which the Committee is being treated. It is an attitude which has become all too common with hon. Members opposite, who have no real understanding of democracy—[Interruption.] Oh, yes; hon. Members opposite think that Parliament merely exists for carrying out their executive decisions. It is time we took a stand against that attitude and insisted on hon. Members making their case before we endorse their actions.
I have noticed that since these questions have been raised by my hon. Friends, papers have been going backwards and forwards between the Secretary for Overseas Trade and those instructing him, making it abundantly clear that when he came here to make his case he did not


even know what his case was. He has since been very busy finding out. Now that the hon. Gentleman has had time—and I hope he is grateful to us for giving him time—I hope he will take the Committee into his confidence and tell us what his case is.

Mr. Alport: It strikes us on this side of the Committee as interesting that this new Clause should relate to the Act of 1876. It will be remembered that that was perhaps the climax of the Disraeli Government which laid the foundation not only of the progress but also of the reinforcement of the loyalties and unities of the Empire. One of the ways in which this was done was to create a system of tariffs which enabled us eventually, after some time, to give preference to the Commonwealth and Empire to enable them to develop their economic resources.
It is interesting, therefore, that the year 1876 should be referred to in this Clause which, following the decisions at Torquay, breaks down the basis of that unity by reducing the preferential agreements which exist between ourselves and the Commonwealth and Colonies. I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman is certain that the fig industry in Cyprus, for instance, is unaffected by this reduction in preference. As he will know, that island is not by any means on a very stable economic basis, and anything which would harm it economically at the present time of political tension there would be greatly contrary to the interests of the Cypriots and ourselves.
While we on this side of the Committee wish to do everything to encourage our trade and commercial relations with Turkey—a very gallant country which has always had the affections of the people of this country—perhaps the hon. Gentleman would make quite certain that no detriment is suffered by a country like Cyprus with which we are greatly concerned from the Imperial Preference point of view.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am not certain whether the Minister is ready to go to press. I think this is an example of how often in the House of Commons an innocuous-looking Amendment or Clause leads to a discussion of great interest and of some complication.

Mr. Mellish: We know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is only wasting time to let his colleagues come back from Ascot.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I hope the hon. Gentleman will take his duties seriously. No reference to Ascot has been made on this side of the Committee during the discussion of this Clause. While I feel it would probably be wide of the Clause to embark upon a discussion of the merits of Imperial Preference or the ramifications of the Torquay Conference, I would endorse the remarks of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) that we should really like more information.
May I say to the Secretary for Overseas Trade that I thought he somewhat overestimated the memories of some of us when he said "All we are doing is to put in a definition of the Customs Tariff Act, 1876"—for all the world as though hon. Members were present when that Act went through. I have been doing a little rapid historical calculation, without leaving my place, and may I assure the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that I once won a prize for history. I have to rely upon my memory now. In 1876 my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was 12 months old, and Karl Marx died. So that it really is rather a long time ago.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has correctly figured it out.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I think we might be reminded of the meaning of the definition of "drained figs" which appeared in that Act, because it appears in the new Clause in specific terms. I wonder whether it means "dehydrated"—figs from which the water has been extracted. Can we know what reciprocal arrangements there have been with Turkey?

Mr. Mellish: If the hon. and gallant Member would shut up, my hon. Friend would get up and tell him.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am not clear whether the phrase, "shut up" is a Parliamentary term, but I think that what the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) means is that if I would draw my remarks to a conclusion and resume my seat, the Minister might be


prepared to utter an explanation. One would like to know a great deal more about what happened about Turkey at Torquay. I will not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), who said that the people of Turkey had always held our affection. Having myself taken part in the Dardanelles campaign, I may say that I did not hold that view at that time.
I feel that the debate has now come to the point where we might hear from the Minister. I hope also that we might have an intervention from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) who has a photographic memory of these matters. Even though he is seeking repose in the House of Lords at an early date, I hope that before he leaves us he may make a contribution. I believe that now the Minister is fully briefed and I may conclude this form of public duty, and we may now have a 4.30 edition which will contain the latest releases from both Torquay and Ascot.

Mr. Bottomley: Although we have been discussing things which are common to the Clause, the discussion has been rather wide. Indeed I am left wondering whether hon. Members opposite really know what they want. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) asked why we could not do away with this duty altogether. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) asked what are the bargains and whether we have benefited as a result of them. I did say that the Torquay Protocol and schedules thereto had been laid before the House; I presumed that hon. Members opposite had read them, but apparently not. Let me therefore quote from paragraph 16 of the White Paper. As a result of these negotiations:
direct and indirect concessions obtained affect a wide range of manufactured goods including light motor cars and cover imports into Turkey from the United Kingdom valued in terms of 1949 trade at £7 million.
Rates were bound on whisky and gin—that will be of interest to Scottish Members who missed their Questions—certain chemicals and plastics and certain textiles and other goods. So I think it shows that we have secured a very wide range of concessions on goods we want to export to that country.
I cannot give any idea of the amount of figs we shall import for the current

year. All I can say is that our trade figures show that last year about 53,000 cwt. of figs were imported into this country. One hon. Member asked what we were getting out of the agreement. It is to stimulate the import of figs to meet the wish of those who say that figs are a good food, and also in order to send to Turkey the kind of goods our manufacturers are anxious to sell to them.

Captain Crookshank: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us that information at last? We are grateful to him and I do not think we need spend further time on this matter. Perhaps it will be a lesson to him and his colleagues that when they want to hurry on business, the worst way to facilitate it is by not giving full information.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(REDUCTION OF ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY IN CASE OF RACING OF MOTOR CYCLES WITH STANDARD POWER UNITS.)

(1) In section one of the Finance Act, 1935 (which as subsequently amended provided for reduced rates of duty when the performers are an essential part of the sport or entertainment), the words "a circus, the racing or trial of speed of motor cycles fitted with standard power units and where the ultimate result of such trial of speed is dependent upon the skill of the rider, a travelling show, a menagerie, or any game or sport other than the racing or trial of speed of animals, vehicles, motor vessels or aircraft" shall be substituted throughout for the words "a circus, a travelling show, a menagerie, or any game or sport other than the racing or trial of speed of animals, vehicles, motor vessels or aircraft"

(2) In this section—

(a) the word "vehicles" shall not include motor cycles fitted with standard power units:
(b) the words "standard power units" shall mean internal combustion engines of identical cubic capacity.—[Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the first of the New Clauses which deals with one of the aspects of the Entertainments Duty. I would say at the outset that I consider, and always have done, that this classification of different forms of entertainment for Entertainments Duty purposes is as non-party an


issue as we can ever find in the Finance Bill. That is the historic position, and I think it is true today as regards this particular duty in connection with which I am moving this new Clause.
May I first deal with the position of a speedway as it is taxed and classified at the present time. It comes under the heading of mechanical or non-live entertainments or sports, and therefore a 45 per cent. Entertainments Duty is charged upon the admission price, instead of a 15 per cent. duty which is charged on such entertainments and sports as football and other analogous things. That is to say, the tax on a 2s. 6d. speedway ticket is 1s. 1d. and the tax on a 2s. 6d. football match admission ticket at the present time is 3d.—and so it goes on down the scale.
I cannot speak of what would be the effect of the proposals in the Finance Bill as regards any change in Entertainments Duty upon a speedway, and I think it a very great pity that one cannot do so. All I can do is to paint the picture as it is at the present time. To give an example, which I think sums up the extraordinary and rather absurd position regarding the relative incidence of the Entertainments Duty, may I give figures relating to one of the big stadiums on the outskirts of London? If that stadium is filled for speedway racing, the value of it is some £23,000 and the tax paid on that capacity admission is £10,000. If the same stadium is filled with spectators for a football match, the value of the capacity is £39,000 and the actual tax paid is only £3,000.
That shows what an absurd muddle we have got into as regards this classification of different kinds of entertainment and sport—£10,000 tax on £23,000 and £3,000 tax on £39,000 from exactly the same stadium, filled with very much the same sort of people, because the people who watch football are not unique and nor are those who watch at a speedway.
The effect of the tax as it is today on existing tracks is quite a serious matter. Four tracks have already closed down, and I am informed—and having gone into the matter as far as I can, I think I can endorse the information—that at least another six tracks will close down without any additional tax which may, or may not, be imposed as a result of the present Finance Bill. That really is a

very serious matter because the national figure for attendance at speedway racing, is something like 10,250,000 people—a diminishing number, may I say, over the last few years. Such a figure is a reasonable proportion of the total of those who attend all sports and entertainment of that class.
I do not say that 10,250,000 different people attend these meetings every year. That is not a fact, any more than it would be a fact to say that different people go to football matches every week, but 10,250,000 people pay for admission to speedways in the course of the year. That number is steadily diminishing. In the last year it diminished more rapidly than can fairly be described by the word "steady." The drop was pretty drastic.
That is reflected in the amount of revenue derived by the Exchequer from the duty on this sport. In 1950 the tax paid was £430,000, though that figure also includes money from motor racing and motorcycle racing, which is very different, as I will point out later. The revenue in 1950 showed a decrease of 20 per cent. on that in 1949, and a decrease of 12 per cent. on that in 1948. These figures show that this form of Entertainments Duty comes well within the zone of danger—the zone of the law of diminishing returns.
It is certain from what I have said—and I could pass details privately to the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor about the future of some of the tracks—that unless something is done the revenue derived will decline even more. A larger number of tracks will be closed down altogether, and finally, not only will that form of entertainment cease, but of course the revenue from it will cease. That must be borne in mind by anybody who wishes to give fair consideration to this question.
I should like to refer to what may or may not be inserted into the Finance Bill with regard to Entertainments Duty as a whole. So far as I have been able to discover, my latest information being as recent as only three hours ago, no consultation has taken place between the Treasury and the Speedway Control Board and those interested in this sport about any proposals for the re-allocation of the burden of the tax. It makes this question most difficult to debate and to consider fairly when we do not know what the proposals are.
It is right next to turn to the effect on the Revenue if this entertainment were reclassified and put on the same basis as football and other so-called "live" sports by the duty being reduced from 45 per cent. to 15 per cent. The apparent reduction in revenue would be in the nature of £280,000. I think the Financial Secretary would agree that the reduction would be slightly less than that figure because the details on which that estimate is based include the tax on motor racing and motor cycle racing.
But it is fair to argue—and everybody who knows anything about it agrees—that if the duty were reduced, not only would the decline in attendance be stopped, but the attendance would improve. In fact, the apparent decline estimated on existing figures would not transpire. The true decline would be considerably less. Another point in this connection is that those who promote the entertainment have undertaken to pass on to the public any reduction in tax to the extent of at least 50 per cent. That of itself would be a considerable inducement to greater attendances, especially in certain classes of seats.
Before I conclude, I must try to prove that this entertainment has a right to claim re-classification. It is different from any ordinary form of motor-cycle racing. Speedway racing takes place on standard tracks with machines with standard engines and standard tyres. Everything is as standardised as possible. The use of a standard engine has done a lot to contribute towards the high reputation of our motorcycle engines and has assisted to promote big sales abroad. We should not lose sight of that. It is a good reason why the entertainment should be kept alive in this form.
There is no revenue to this entertainment from any part of the trade. Motorcycle and motorcar racing is heavily subsidised by trade interests—the lubricating oil people and the tyre concerns, and all the rest of it; but this business is not subsidised, and it does not receive one penny from outside. It derives no revenue from any form of betting or any "rake-off" or commission from the totalisator. It relies absolutely on what is paid at the turnstiles for the tickets, less tax. I would also point out that these races are run under a very rigid form of discipline and are amazingly well organised. As the

machines are standardised, success in a race depends entirely upon the skill of the rider. That point cannot possibly be evaded.
One might say that the race could not take place if there was not a motor bicycle. Of course, it could not, and it could not take place if there were no petrol—and there would be no petrol if we were not living on this earth. I do not think that that argument takes us very much further. One could apply it to cricket, football and other entertainments. All would be impossible unless something else were there as well as the human being.
In this case, the something else is the machine, which is standardised as far as it is humanly possible to standardise this equipment, as are the tracks and even the tyres which carry the rider. That point puts this form of sport outside the general considerations which cover a great many other forms of entertainment when they have to be considered for Entertainments Duty. I should like to point out that there has not yet been evolved any standard horse or dog, nor is there yet a standard bat, although there are certain limitations imposed upon that weapon.
It may well be that the Government are doubtful whether they could give any concession in the form of re-classification because they fear that the door would be opened to other forms of entertainment which would claim to be justified in putting forward a similar argument. The Treasury are always terribly frightened about opening doors, though they like to slam them in people's faces. I suggest that this door could be reserved for consideration and action without letting anything else pass through, and I should like to explain why.
There is no difficulty whatever in finding a barrier between the speedway and for instance, the cinema industry. I cannot help thinking that possibly the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary may be more alarmed at any claims which might be made by the cinema industry if something were done to the speedways than they are afraid of claims from other forms of entertainment. But it is perfectly easy, right and proper to draw a line between the canned indirect entertainment and a live industry. In principle that was


accepted when differentiation was made between the live theatre and the cinema screen.
5.0 p.m.
How it is that that barrier, that bar, that dividing line, which has been agreed to by Parliament for a good many years, suddenly disappears when speedway racing is on one side of the line and the cinema is on the other? I really do not think that the Chancellor need fear any risk that the cinema industry would, with any justice, base a claim for a change of treatment merely on something that was done for the speedway.
I would point out that the fact that films are made of football matches has never been considered as a basis either for a reduction of the duty on cinema seats or for an increased duty on football, and that fact seems to me to recognise that there really is, in the long run, a difference between the canned representation of what takes place in human form and watching what is actually taking place.
I urge this case upon the Chancellor, because it is a very serious one. For some years now, there has been a grave sense of injustice about this duty among several million people who are keen speedway followers. That really is so. Those who organise this industry have behaved remarkably well. They have not organised any form of demonstration against the incidence of Entertainments Duty, but they have behaved in such a way under many Governments as I cannot think anybody else has ever behaved. It would have been perfectly possible for them to organise demonstrations and to do a great deal about it. They have learned their way to the Treasury pretty well, as some of us have, in praying constant visits in order to put their point of view very clearly to the Financial Secretary and also to a series of Chancellors of the Exchequer.
Speedway racing is called a family sport, but I am not claiming any sentimental right that, because it is called a family sport, it should be treated, merely on that ground, in any different way. When people talk about a family sport, what it really means is that the proportion of young people who go to speedway racing is higher than the proportion of young people who go to football matches, and because of that it does seem a little

bit incongruous to the young people that, while father pays practically no duty on a seat at a football match—he pays nothing at all if he is only standing—his children have to pay three times as much if they go to the speedway to occupy a seat of exactly the same value. It is not a good thing that that should happen.
Again, this is a non-betting, non-gambling form of entertainment, and it is one of the very few forms of entertainment to which young people can go, and, if they want, can shout their heads off. There are probably very few forms of entertainment where they can do that today without being turned out. It is true that they might try it in the cinema—[Interruption.] By the time we reach the House, I fear that we can never be classified as young. Even if we were allowed to shout our heads off, I think you, Sir Charles, would have something to say about it. Because of this fact, the speedway is in a very different class. There are very few opportunities in these days for the young really to let themselves go, and there is no possible doubt of their keenness and interest in this form of sport.
Anybody who watches these crowds collecting in order to attend speedway meetings will see something that I think is very fascinating indeed. When I go, I stand outside quite a long time watching people streaming in from miles around and wearing club colours. What are they all talking about? Are they talking about the make of machine which is going to race? No, never. They are all talking about the names of the riders who are to compete, and that is a point which I wish to stress most strongly.
This is a live sport and a very human sport; it depends on the skill of human beings, and should be so classified and taxed. I ask why it is that this matter cannot be discussed on a completely non-party basis, as I have tried to keep it as far as possible. In the past, these things have come as near as we could possibly get to being allowed a free vote. I should have thought that, since this matter involves less than £250,000, it might well be left to a free vote of the Committee. Let the Chancellor risk a free vote on this occasion. We know perfectly well that it will not bring the Government down if he gives way, and, indeed, if he does give way, it might in some ways strengthen the hand of the Government and be a very


popular move. That risk should be willingly taken, because this form of entertainment deserves both help and fair play.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I want to add my word of support to the general case which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing) has just made. I thought he made that case very fairly and fully, and most certainly without any political bias. Perhaps I had better say that, although there is no speedway track in my own constituency, I am very interested in this question. It is true that there is a track in a neighbouring constituency, and that many of my constituents follow this sport. It is because, like the hon. Member who moved this Clause, I have seen the sport and have seen that, in fact, the majority of those who follow it are the young type of honest, decent working-class and middle-class person, that I am so interested in trying to put right what I feel to be a very serious anomaly.
For a long time past, the Treasury have made up their minds—though I have never yet been able to understand how or why they reached their conclusion—that this is a mechanical sport. I suppose it is because motor cycles are used, but, as the hon. Member opposite has said, the motor cycle is of standard cubic capacity. It has the same tyres, and it is the same in all respects; in fact, these motor cycles are made by the same firm, whose works are situated in an adjacent constituency to mine—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer). They are known as the J.A.P. motor cycle, which are ridden by various drivers, and it depends entirely upon the skill of the individual driver whether he comes in first or last.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned the differentiation between the two rates of Entertainments Duty. I think it is not only unfair, but disgusting, to expect a young factory worker, say, in Coventry, who has been working hard all the week, and who goes along to see speedway racing, to pay three times as much taxation as a person who pays 20 guineas for a ringside seat at the Albert Hall. I do not begrudge the person who pays the 20 guineas, but I think it is unfair that he should pay only £3 in taxation as against the factory worker paying £9 in taxation for the same outlay of cash.
The hon. Gentleman opposite also mentioned that in this type of sport there is no advertising so far as oil, petrol, tyres or even the engines of the motor cycles are concerned, because I think it has been mentioned that anyone who competes does so with the same make of machine.

Mr. James Johnson: Is it a monopoly?

Mr. Lewis: No, it is not a monopoly. It just happens that this firm—[Laughter.] Well, if it is going to be suggested that it is a monopoly because a particular firm produces a near-perfect type of article, one could say that the Rolls Royce engine is a monopoly in so far as it happens to be the finest engine in the world. In the same way, J.A.P. could say that theirs is the finest motor-cycle engine.
It has been argued that the cinemas, or those who go in for horse racing, might try to cash in if there were a re-classification. I cannot see how anyone can logically argue that the cinema is a live entertainment in the same way as speedway. Neither can I see the logic of the argument that horse racing is on a par with the speedway. It may be true that they have both got horse power, but I have never yet seen a horse with works and inside identical in all respects with every other horse. I do not follow horse racing, but I do know, according to what I read, that it makes a difference to the horses if the course happens to be wet or dry.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman is anticipating another new Clause about horse racing.

Mr. Lewis: I was trying to show, Sir Charles, that there is, in fact, no comparison between one type of Entertainments Duty as against another. However, in view of what you have said, I will not proceed further with that argument.
I want now to deal with the classifications. This sport should be correctly classified on the same basis as cricket and other live entertainments, and I emphasise "correctly classified." We are not asking for any preferential treatment for this sport, but only that it should be correctly classified under its proper heading and thus repair, to some extent, the damage done to it since 1935, I think it was, when it was incorrectly classified.
What would it mean? It would mean something like £280,000 in a full year.


But with a £4,000 million Budget I cannot see that that is going to make much difference. Even if it did, I am convinced that the £280,000 would, to some extent, if not entirely, be recouped through the increased attendances. What is even more important, it would mean the reopening of the many tracks that have had to close down. I read in the Press today that two more tracks have had to close down. They tried changing their days in order to get the people to come along but found this tax so oppressive that they had no alternative but to close down.
What is the position at the moment? I will quote some figures which I think should persuade the Chancellor that he has all to gain and nothing to lose from at least giving an assurance that he will do something in the matter. The figures for the Harringay track show that in April, 1950, there was an attendance of just over 28,000, while in April this year that figure had fallen to 14,000. In other words, it had dropped by half. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that if the tax were put on a proper basis, at least some of those who at the moment will not pay 2s. or 3s. to go once to the speedway would probably go twice if they found they could do so by paying slightly more than for going once, and the Chancellor would gain by that.
5.15 p.m.
Mention has been made of the tracks that have been closed. There are some eight or nine of them which, I think, would reopen if this long overdue improvement were made. I honestly do not understand the Treasury's argument against this. First of all, they tried the argument that it would mean a loss of revenue. When it was found that would not apply, the Treasury tried to use the argument that the cinemas might come forward with a similar request. How one can say that the cinemas could argue that theirs is live entertainment I do not know. Now, I understand, the Treasury think that the horse racing fraternity and those in similar types of entertainment might argue that they were entitled to the same treatment. I cannot see the logic of that. Having tried to look at it fairly from both points of view, I am convinced that there is no case at all to be made against the abolition of what I feel to be the most unfair imposition of this tax on speedway racing.
I think it would be true to say that the majority of hon. Members on this side of the Committee would vote for this Clause if they felt that by so doing they were in no way endangering the Government. That is how strongly they feel on the issue. [Laughter.] I see no reason for laughter, because I was going on to say that, important as this matter is, we realise that it is far more important to keep the present Government in power and to keep the Tories out.
I ask the Treasury to realise that this is not just a one-sided or political issue. It is something which we feel that the Chancellor and the Treasury could and should put right. Therefore, we ask them to look at the matter again and to give us at least some promise that an improvement will be made. I do not want the Treasury to say that when they come to consider a re-arrangement for the cinemas they will do it in such a way that it will apply to speedway racing. That, I think, would be unfair. What should obviously be undertaken is a complete reclassification under its correct heading of this particular sport.

Mr. Black: I intend to be extremely brief in what I have to say, as I realise that on both sides of the Committee there is a large number of Members who are anxious to speak on this issue. Let me say straightaway that I feel so much more strongly on the matter than the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), that, in the absence of some satisfactory assurance from the Government spokesman, I shall have no hesitation in going into the Lobby against the Government and thereby record my judgment on this issue.
There is a large speedway track in my constituency, and I am very happy that I have been successful in catching your eye, Sir Charles, because, if I had not had the opportunity of speaking on this matter on which my constituents feel very strongly, I should have had a great feeling of apprehension in going back to my constituency and having to admit I had not done so.
I should like to emphasise a point which I think has not been mentioned so far, and that is that speedway, perhaps more than the great majority of sports, is a family sport and as such is deserving of special consideration and special help. It


is a sport that appeals to men and to women, to the old and to the young, and whole families, parents and children, attend it together. That is something very much in favour of speedway compared with a great many other sports.
The result of the injustice from which this sport has suffered during the past 16 years has been that six tracks at least have closed down up to the moment because they cannot be operated remuneratively. Six more tracks, at least, are in imminent danger of closing down for the same reason; and this is before the new increased duty has come into force. If the existing duty is of such a penal and serious character as to close down speedway tracks in various parts of the country, what is likely to be the result of the increased duty if that is ever imposed?
I suggest very seriously to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, even looking at this matter from the narrow fiscal point of view and disregarding all other considerations, he will be losing money in maintaining this discriminatory and unfair duty. If he were to recognise the strength of the case for treating speedway on the same footing as football it would be likely to result in the Revenue receiving a larger amount of duty in the aggregate rather than a smaller amount. Therefore, even from the narrow fiscal viewpoint the Government will be likely to profit and not lose by recognising the strength of the case we are now putting forward.
Speedway is an open air sport. It encourages people to be out in the stadiums in which they are in the open air as distinct from being in an enclosed building with perhaps the stuffy atmosphere one often finds in such places. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I recognise that some hon. Members apparently feel rather sensitive on this particular matter. The point has already been made, but I desire to emphasise it, that speedway is a non-betting sport. I am reliably informed it is impossible to lay bets on speedway racing. No machinery exists for it, and there is no betting associated with this sport. In my judgment, that fact entitles the sport to favourable consideration.
There is a sense of grievance among the public who feel it is quite wrong that speedway should be treated differently from football in this matter of Entertainments Duty. It so happens that the speedway

track in my constituency immediately adjoins the local football ground. Thousands of people support both sports. They go to speedway on Monday and football on Saturday, and they are not impressed in the slightest by the kind of narrow technical arguments which are brought forward to attempt to justify the entirely different treatment given to speedway from that accorded to football.
The sporting public will never be persuaded that there is any good or common sense reason for treating speedway so unfairly compared with football. I join my entreaty to those already directed from both sides of the Committee to the Chancellor to realise that here he has everything to gain from the fiscal point of view by making the concession, and to realise that he will earn a vast amount of goodwill in undertaking what will be generally regarded as an act of justice.

Mr. Ralph Morley: I wish to speak very briefly in favour of the idea behind this Clause. If the state of the parties in the House of Commons had not been so close, a number of us from this side of the Committee would have put down precisely the same Clause. But although we consider this is a matter of importance and that an injustice has been done to speedway racing, we do not think it is of sufficient importance to defeat His Majesty's Government. We hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be persuaded by the representations that are being made this afternoon to make some needed concession.
As has been stated already, speedway racing is a family sport. It is a sport to which father and mother and Bill and Gladys can go together. It is a very clean sport. There is no betting at all attached to it, and there is no advertisement connected with it. It deserves to be classified as a live sport, because the machines which are used are of the same cubic capacity and use the same type of tyres and oil. The only difference is in the skill and courage of the riders of the machines. The element of success or failure depends entirely upon the personality of the riders and not upon the machines they use, because all the machines are the same.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose nothing financially by making some


concession in this case, because owing to the high incidence of the present duty the attendance at various speedway racing centres has been rapidly diminishing during the last two years and, in the process, receipts to the Chancellor from Entertainments Duty have been lessened. In 1950 there were two million fewer people attending speedway racing tracks in this country than in 1949, and the receipts from Entertainments Duty last year were £120,000 less than they were in 1949. That process is continuing.
Last year six of these tracks closed down. The organisers could not get a sufficient number of people at attend to make the tracks remunerative. The reason was the high price of admission, due to the high incidence of Entertainments Duty. This year six more speedway tracks are threatening to close down, and I heard today that my own track in Southampton is likely to close down through lack of revenue.
Therefore, if this duty is continued at its present rate there will be a lessening and not an increase of returns to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So, from the point of view of justice to the people concerned, from the aspect that this is really a live entertainment, and because of the interests of the Exchequer itself, I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider making some real concession in this matter.
5.30 p.m.
The speedway cannot be compared with the cinema. There is no advertisement in speedway racing, whereas so far as the cinema is concerned practically every manufacturer of cosmetics and lingerie uses photographs of the most pulchritudinous of the reigning cinema queens to advertise his particular wares. Speedway racing is a clean sport and a family sport, and very largely a working-class sport. I ask the representatives of the Treasury Bench if they cannot make some reasonable concession.

Wing Commander Bullus: I am anxious to be identified and associated with the Clause, not only because of the justice of the case but because it directly affects the Stadium of Wembley. The Stadium is pre-eminent in sport and is loved by sportsmen,

in general, and, in particular, by her two Members of Parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that over the past few weeks I, in common with other hon. Members, have sought from time to time to put down Questions calling his attention to this discriminatory tax. We have used a different form of words not only to avoid repetition but chiefly to get the Question past the Table. Ten days ago I had the privilege of asking the last Question on this subject. I felt that I had a sympathetic smile from the Chancellor when he said in his best style: "We shall, of course, be discussing the question next week." If I was mistaken then, I am sure that I am not mistaken now in saying that the whole of the Committee are in favour of the new Clause.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware of all the arguments that can be put forward for the Clause, especially after listening to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing) and of the other Members of the Committee. I make bold to suggest that the whole crux of the matter is in the attendances, which are rapidly falling. Already in 1951 there is a drop in the attendance of first division clubs of 25 per cent., of 15 per cent. for the second division, and 8 per cent. for the third division.
Reference has been made to the number of tracks which have been closed. My hon. Friend pointed out that six had been shut down, four of them directly because of this discriminatory tax. The hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) indicated that the stadium in his constituency is likely also to be closed. I presume to suggest that it is his duty and the duty of other Members on the opposite side of the Committee who feel as he does to go into the Division Lobby and support the Clause.

Squadron Leader Kingdom: I, too, shall not be long in voicing my support for the spirit behind the Clause. Speedway racing, as we have heard, is an open air sport, and therefore it needs what support we can give it. I have received letters from hundreds of my constituents in which they tell me how complete a family affair is the speedway:


All my family"—
says one of them—
there are eight of us—are supporters of speedway, and we are afraid that the extra tax may be the ultimate cause of many tracks having to close down.
This letter is no exception; I have hundreds in the same tune. Speedway racing is a good sport. It is training people in a very sound way, and has everything to be said for it in that respect.
In a constituency like mine, the economic life of most of the people is in providing something which is absolutely essential to all industrial workers: that is, a holiday in the short months of the summer season. I never hesitate to stress that that is the industry of a seaside resort like my own, that of Great Yarmouth. It has, therefore, to be treated in the same way as when we have regard to a great industry—like the textile industry, for example—and ask, "Is this tax that we are putting on so discriminatory that it will damage that industry and that town and the people who work in it?
My feeling is that the damage is already occurring. In April of last year the average weekly figure of people attending our speedways was just over 6,000. In April, 1951, the number had already dropped to 4,500. It is true that the figures do not apply to the summer season—I am glad that they do not, because we hope that our holiday makers will have more money in their pockets during their holiday periods to be able to spend more money on these entertainments, and that our figures will go up. It is the few vital summer months that enable people in the holiday resorts to make the money by which they can tide themselves over for the rest of the year.
This tax will stop a certain amount of wealth coming into the town, not only during the holiday season but throughout the rest of the year. That is not a good thing for people living in the kind of industry I have described. Therefore, I plead with the representatives of the Treasury Bench at least to take this matter back and have another look at it. I ask them to decide that speedway racing is a live sport and that it will be harmful to impose the tax at this rate, and that we may have some reconsideration of the question before the Bill reaches its final stages.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I want very briefly to support the Clause and to mention a point which has not so far arisen. I support the Clause from the point of view of Cornwall. We in Cornwall have a special interest in the speedway, for a unique reason: that there is in Cornwall no other organised open air sport on a large scale. We have no large racecourses, no dog tracks and no organised football grounds of any size. In East Cornwall, association football is enthusiastically followed, but it is entirely on a local scale and is almost entirely amateur. West Cornwall, of course, plays rugby football.
But we have the speedway. Owing to local enterprise, between St. Austell and Parr a very efficient speedway has been constructed, in a very convenient spot suitable for people to reach it, but situated in such a position that an objection which is sometimes raised to the speedway does not in that case apply. It is sometimes complained that speedway racing is a very noisy sport and is a nuisance to the neighbourhood. In Cornwall, our speedway is situated at a place which is not heavily developed, and although it is between two sizeable towns it is not in a built-up area.
This speedway, however, although it is very popular, has been having a hard struggle. I am told that it is particularly popular with the agricultural workers, because it is a sport to which they can go in the evenings. Working, as many of them do, six or seven days a week, they do not get the same opportunities as other people of going to afternoon sport, but they go to the speedway and travel very long distances to do so.
In reinforcement of the points which have already been made, I would merely point out that should our Cornish speedway be forced to close down the Revenue will receive no remuneration from any other alternative source whatever, because the agricultural workers cannot go to any other form of sport. The result would be a loss of revenue to the Treasury. For these reasons, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give favourable consideration to the new Clause.

Dr. King: I want to urge the Chancellor to accept this Clause, althought I do not quite accept the picture of the situation as given in the


very admirable speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing). I do not think the problem is of the size he mentioned; I do not think it affects such millions of people. None the less, although it affects a smaller number of people, a wrong is being done to them, and a wrong is a wrong no matter how small the group. I do not think either that the financial problem for the Treasury is the £250,000 which he mentioned.
It is my firm belief that unless this concession is given speedway is finished in this country, and that there will, therefore, be no revenue from it at all. Indeed, had this discussion been postponed a little longer, it would have been merely academic, because speedway would not then have been in existence.
Reference has been made to the Southampton Speedway and to the possibility of its being closed down. It may interest the Chancellor to know that it has now been closed and that he will get no revenue from it at all. I visited the Southampton Speedway some three or four weeks ago during discussions on this matter, and I talked not only to the directors of the Speedway company but also with very ordinary men and women who attended this sport week by week in family groups.
There was a group of supporters so keen that they organised functions to save the club, if possible, from bankruptcy, and devoted voluntarily whatever sums they raised towards financing the club. I talked to men who, in the early days of the speedway track, had taken their families to it regularly, and of whose families now only one member goes week by week, because that is all that can be afforded for what previously had been a family outing. I saw the books of the company, and I realised that even then the company was running at a loss, whereas if the tax taken week by week had been moderate that company could have made a profit.
Economically, speedway differs from many sports because it has heavy weekly overheads. Riders have to maintain their bicycles. They claim, incidentally, that they are already paying Purchase Tax on their bicycles and that they are giving further tax to the country by buying the petrol they consume. Half the weekly

expenditure, roughly, of a speedway track goes in contributions to the Inland Revenue.
I do not want to repeat the general argument that this is a good sport because no gambling is associated with it, although I do believe that a sport in connection with which no gambling takes place is a sport which we in this Committee ought to encourage. I was struck on my first visit to the speedway by the magnificent skill and courage of the riders. I would say that there is as much artistry shown in the driving and handling of those machines as there is shown by the players of musical instruments at a concert. A speedway rider uses a standard instrument, although violinists use instruments that are by no means standard—

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Does my hon. Friend think that the rider and the violinist make the same noise?

Dr. King: I would suggest in all seriousness that it is better for our young folk to be encouraged to watch those fine young men engaged in acts of skill and courage than to be driven to watch films which show a very great regard for Betty Grable's legs or Jane Russell's torso. We often hear in debates such as this about the law of diminishing returns. I want to say quite seriously to the Chancellor that there will be no returns for him because speedway must close down unless there is a more equitable form of taxation.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? Without disagreeing with his main argument at all, may I ask him, when he says that the speedway public may be driven into the cinemas, whether it is not the case that the cinemas are also complaining of falling attendances, and whether the real trouble before the Committee is the height of Entertainments Duty as a whole?

5.45 p.m.

Dr. King: We are discussing at the moment only the tax on this particular entertainment and sport. On other aspects of the Entertainments Duty doubtless we should have other things to say. I would ask my right hon. Friend to accept the Clause because speedway is being destroyed, because this taxation is bad finance, because it is bad for sport, and because it is bad for a small but honest and keen group of English sportsmen.

Mr. McAdden: I promise to be brief in giving support to the Clause. I feel that the disadvantages from which speedway is suffering—as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee recognise—are due to the fact that the Act in which Entertainments Duty was first levied upon sport was passed long before speedway ever came into existence. The Finance Act, 1916, was responsible for introducing Entertainments Duty in the first instance. That was a Measure passed during a war, and the duty was agreed to on an assurance by the then Chancellor that it was only a temporary measure.
Nothing happened in the matter until 1935, when provisions were made for reducing the rate of tax in respect of stage plays in order to differentiate between them and cinema entertainments. That reduction which was made at that time seems to me to have been made for a specific purpose, at a time when speedway racing certainly was not fully developed. It was not until 1946 that steps were taken in order to try to apply that measure of reduction in Entertainments Duty to particular forms of sport.
Speedway racing does not benefit from the relief afforded in 1946 because that did not extend to racing or trials of speed by animals, vehicles, motor vessels or aircraft. Provision was made at that time, however, that bicycle racing, as distinct from motor speedway racing, should be made liable only to the lower rate of tax.
Sufficient arguments have been advanced, I think, on both sides of the Committee for it to be clear that motorcycle speedway racing is done with standard vehicles, so that a great amount of ability and skill has to be displayed by the riders of the machines. Seeing that it was possible for a distinction to be made in the case of ordinary bicycles, so also it should be possible for the Treasury—if it is willing—to find ways and means of giving this very valuable assistance to speedway racing with standard machines.
I urge the Chancellor to accept the Clause. Members on both sides of the Committee have supported it—even though only some of them are prepared to carry their beliefs to a greater extent than others. I do hope that those who speak for the Treasury in this matter will

give this Clause adequate consideration, and give speedway much needed assistance.

Mr. Crossman: I do not want to detain the Committee long. I would say to one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite who have talked about voting on principle that I hope the time will never come when they will have to undergo the test of deciding whether they feel so strongly on a particular issue that they would vote for it even though their votes would be sufficient to bring down a Government of their own party.
We on this side plead with the Financial Secretary to show a little more understanding of the fact that this is not a mere racket. When I first began to get letters and circulars, I suspected that they were from one of the pressure groups with which all Members of Parliament are afflicted. We have had this sort of thing from the Pools promoters, and I was naturally suspicious that this was the result of another pressure group and I threw away all the printed circulars which I received. I ought here to declare that I have a half share in the Coventry Speedway with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson).
What impressed me later was the number of letters written at full length in people's own handwriting which I received. They were genuine letters and not merely the result of the action of a pressure group. Since the abolition of basic petrol, I have received more letters on this subject than on any other from my constituents, and I believe that there is a genuine spontaneous interest in the sport and that it is not an interest merely contrived by a commercial organisation. I ask the Financial Secretary to recognise that there is a genuine need for consideration to be given to speedway fans.
I also ask the Financial Secretary not to bring in the question of the general level of Entertainments Duty. What we are arguing, certainly from this side of the Committee, is that this is a genuine case of an injustice being done to a certain form of sport as a result of a faulty classification. We are discussing not the general level of duty but whether or not it was right to classify speedways on the one side broadly with athletics or on the other side broadly with sports in which


gambling could take place, and our case is that a mistake was made in the classification.
I have asked the Treasury about this, and I gather that the answer is that they cannot make distinctions between one form of racing and another, but, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) has pointed out, distinctions are made between different forms of racing. Ordinary track athletics where people run round on their own feet is classed at a certain rate of duty, as in the case of bicycle sports if the bicycle has not a motor attached to it. A sudden jump occurs in the case of a speedway where the bicycle has a motor, and we are told that this sport is the same as motor car racing.
As I represent Coventry I should very much like to see some reduction in the duty for motor racing. In motor car racing the skill of the drivers matters but it is not the only factor, because there are variations in the performance of the motor cars. But there is no variation between the machines or the petrol used in speedway racing. Every effort is made to see that all the riders start with exactly comparable machines. The Treasury allow ordinary bicycle racing at a lower rate of duty because everything depends on the skill of the rider and there is no real difference in the machines. In the case of the speedway, everything is done to see that it is also a test of the rider. In these circumstances, why should the speedway be classed at the top level and not at the bottom level?
First of all, the subject of gambling was brought up, but that has now been withdrawn because it is admitted that there is no gambling. There is no tote on these courses and the fans would resent gambling on the risks taken by the riders. Now we are told that the reason for the difference is mechanical. Why should a genuine test of skill have to bear the burden of three times as much tax as other sports? I agree that this is a marginal case and that it is a very difficult matter to judge, but I should have thought that, after the debate we have had, the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor would have become aware that this is a matter which has been brought about not because of pressure

but because a genuine mistake has been made in classification.
I can understand why a mistake was made. Very often speedways began on tracks where greyhound racing was taking place and often they were organised by the same companies and it was therefore assumed that speedway racing could be lumped in with greyhound racing as both were controlled by the same concern. That was years ago, and now we know that it is not true. What we demand from the Financial Secretary is not sweet words but a detailed explanation of why this form of sport is classified not with athletics and ordinary non-mechanical bicycling but with motor car racing. If he can satisfy me that the present classification is correct, I shall have no objection to it, but I doubt whether he can do that.
At present the Treasury appear to have dug their toes in. All I ask is that our argument shall receive reasonable consideration. Many hon. Members on this side of the Committee are concerned about this not merely because of votes but because their constituents have a legitimate grievance. Why should not the Financial Secretary think the matter over before the Report stage? I do not ask him to commit himself today, but I think that he should have some regard for the strong feeling in the Committee.
For many hours a relatively small number of hon. Members have sat in the Committee arguing about the rates of tax on people with £15,000 a year, but this is a debate in which there is a genuine public and popular interest among ordinary working people. In view of the genuine demand from both sides of the Committee, I urge my hon. Friend not to say now that he cannot change his mind but to give himself time to think this over before the Report stage.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), has made a very cogent speech which he began with an exordium about conscience and ended by saying that he did not want the opportunity this afternoon of showing which way he intended to vote in the Lobby. With the exception of that, I think he was on the whole on the right lines. He also referred to the curious fact that the great


taxation Clauses which we have been discussing, which affect the whole life of the nation and its commercial future in many cases—such as Clauses 28 and 32—have passed by in almost complete silence from the benches opposite.

Mr. Crossman: It was because we agreed with them.

Mr. Lyttelton: They also passed in the absence of the hon. Member for Coventry, East, and I do not think that he should come here now and give us these exhortations at this stage. We ought to have a certain sense of proportion about this matter. We are now discussing taxation amounting to about £250,000, but some of the other Clauses involved sums of £60 million or £70 million and they have been debated entirely from this side of the Committee.
The arguments appear to have been very cogently put and I do not propose to go over them again. I should like just to refer to the matter of classification, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Coventry, East. We must be honest about this. If more revenue has to be raised, it ought not to be raised as a result of having an absolutely idiotic classification. The hon. Member for Coventry, East, showed that this classification is completely absurd. The addition of a motor to a bicycle makes the result dead entertainment. When a man hits a golf ball it is live entertainment but when he rides a horse it is dead entertainment. All the talent on the Treasury Bench ought not to be found defending a proposition for which no sensible man and not even a boy in the fourth form could see any justification.
6.0 p.m.
The first point is that a very small sum of revenue is involved. The other question which has been very ably debated is the old law of diminishing returns. I think that all those who have speedways in their constituencies know that the law of diminishing returns is beginning to operate—at any rate, in the opinion of those who run these affairs. I hasten to add that, unlike the hon. Member for Coventry, East, I have no financial or other interest in any speedway. I saw the sport once, and I thought that it was very attractive but unsuited to my figure or calibre, so I am completely dis-interested.
I think that the figures for the years 1948, 1949 and 1950 show that, in spite of the fact that there were three more tracks in 1950 than in 1949, we are, as a matter of practical fact, going to see a fall in revenue owing to the operation of the law of diminishing returns. I hope that the Government will give us some sympathetic reply because, if they do not, I feel that we should press the matter to a Division, and we shall then have the interesting opportunity of seeing how far hon. Members opposite react to the exhortations about voting according to our consciences.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I have listened with great interest and attention to the speeches of hon. Members who obviously have such great knowledge of this important question. I hope that they will return the compliment by listening to the rather different argument, which, I think, has not been so frequently expressed in the last few weeks, and which appears convincing to the Government. I can assure hon. Members who have spoken today that we entirely share their feeling that this is what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing), in moving the new Clause, called it, a fascinating form of entertainment, and that if we could ignore everything else we should be extremely pleased to reduce the Entertainments Duty on it.
If we had not to meet the bill of the social services, which has increased by a very large amount since five years ago, and of the heavy defence programme, I think we would all have great pleasure in reducing the Entertainments Duty on a number of things. But I ask hon. Members to recognise that the Government are bound to raise revenue, and are also bound, if they are to discharge their financial responsibilities conscientiously, to impose taxes in a way which they feel can be honestly defended. I would therefore invite hon. Members to consider the real difficulty in the way of removing this particular form of entertainment from the higher to the lower rate, which is what this Clause asks us to do.
Hon. Members this afternoon have really put forward two quite separate and distinct arguments in favour of the new Clause. The first is that the increase in the higher rate of duty introduced this year, or the duty itself, is an intolerable


burden on those who attend this particular form of racing and makes it almost impossible for the speedways to carry on. The second argument is that whether or not it is impossible for the tracks to carry on, it is in principle intolerable—I think that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that it was a grave injustice—that speedways should bear a higher rate of tax than cricket or football.
I think that the second argument is really the one that weighs most with hon. Members on both sides of the House. And, indeed, as far as the Government are concerned I should make clear straight away that what weighs with us is not the cost of the proposed alteration, but our duty to maintain a structure of taxes which we feel we can honestly defend.
Taking first the question of the amount of the duty, I do not think that some of the fears expressed by hon. Members this afternoon are really borne out by the facts and figures. In the main, the tickets for speedway tracks, including tax, cost 1s. 9d. or 2s. 3d. Those are the most commonly priced tickets. Under the Budget proposals, these prices would go up by only 2d., and, under the further arrangements which were indicated in the Budget speech, one halfpenny of that 2d. would go to the speedway owners, much as in the case of the cinema scheme, thus assisting them to meet present conditions, which are said to be proving difficult.
Therefore, on the typical 1s. 9d. seat, somebody who visits a speedway once a week would pay only 2d. a week extra as a result of the Budget proposals, and the present total Entertainments Duty paid is only 8½d. a week. That is the actual measure of what we are discussing this afternoon.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: Surely if the Budget proposals were brought into effect in accordance with the Schedule, more than 8½d. would be paid on the 1s. 9d. ticket; it is 10½d. more.

Mr. Jay: I was speaking of the duty at present before the new duty comes into effect in August. The 8½d. would, of course, rise to 10d. under the arrangement suggested in the Budget speech. The basic fact is that the 1s. 9d. seat at present is paying 8½d. duty.

Mr. A Lewis: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the differential as between

speedway tracks and football and cricket?

Mr. Jay: I should like to state my argument without too many interruptions, because we have heard the other arguments, and I would like to reply to them. That does not seem to us, in all the circumstances, an unreasonable contribution to the cost of our national defence by those who, after all, choose, like others who choose to go to the cinemas, to attend this particular form of entertainment of their own free will. Let us also remember this: the speedway owners—and this is quite natural—have only offered to pass on to the public one-half of any reduction in tax.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I must correct that statement. I made it clear that they have undertaken to pass on at least 50 per cent., and that 50 per cent. will be far exceeded in some cases.

Mr. Jay: My information is that the offer is one-half; but I will accept the statement that it is at least one-half, if the hon. Gentleman wishes. If the Clause were accepted, it would mean a reduction of 3d. or 4d. on the 1s. 9d. seat. Can it be said that that is of very great significance? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The patrons would obviously like a reduction of 3d. or 4d.
Some hon. Members have suggested that if we adopt that course the Exchequer would more than recoup itself for the apparent loss of revenue. When we look into the arithmetic, I do not think that that argument, although it sounds attractive, can possibly be sustained. It would mean, as a result of a reduction of 3d. or 4d. on a 1s. 9d. seat, that the total attendances would have to be multiplied something like three times in order that there should not be a loss of revenue. I do not think that it can be seriously argued that such a reduction in the price would increase attendances threefold.
It has also been maintained today—and I know that there is genuine misconception about this—that the tax is at present leading to a heavy reduction in attendances and tracks are closing down. I think the information that we have from hon. Members today only gives half the picture. The total attendances at speedway races in 1950—though admittedly lower than in 1949, which was a very


good year because of the exceptionally fine summer—were 10,350,000 compared with 6,623,000 in 1946. So the total attendances are now very much larger than they were four or five years ago.
It appears to us, on an objective review of these facts, that the decline in attendances, which has been seen, certainly over recent months, is part of the decline from the big post-war attendances of all kinds a few years ago, and partly a drop back from an artificial level, to which the industry itself expanded on a perhaps, too optimistic estimate of its prospects. Such decline as there has been is not necessarily due to the tax, any more than is the decline in the attendance at a number of other entertainments which are already paying the lower rates of tax.
We have heard several statements today about tracks closing down. What hon. Members did not realise is that the number of tracks operating at the end of May this year, which is a fortnight ago—which is as far as my figures go—is higher than 12 months ago. My information does not extend to Southampton, but the number of speedway tracks operating at this moment is higher than it was 12 months ago. I only say that so that we may see the figures in their true perspective.
The main burden of the case, so cogently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), is the distinction between football, cricket and the theatre on the one hand and speedway racing, other forms of racing and cinemas on the other. That distinction goes back to a decision of Parliament in 1935 to place theatres, music, and concerts at a lower rate of duty than any other entertainments. Then there was the further decision in 1946 to add to theatres, sports such as cricket and football, where the human performer was not aided by mechanical power or the speed of animals.
Indeed, that is an illustration of the type of difficulty which arises in taxation if the Government or Parliament in a moment of enthusiasm, as for theatres in 1935 and for the so-called live sports in 1946, agrees to differentiate between the rates of tax. From that moment on—and this is the serious difficulty that confronts us and which we have not escaped—we have got to draw a line which the administrators and the Government can conscientiously defend.
Many of the arguments advanced today, powerful though they no doubt are, are really arguments for having no discrimination in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think they are. They are arguments for raising the rate on theatres and the so-called live sports to the main rate at which the great bulk of the revenue is raised. But nobody in practice is proposing that we should do that in the present circumstances.
Therefore, the practical issue for us, as raised by this Clause, is whether we could remove speedway racing from the category, which includes all other motor racing and other types of racing and cinemas, and in the future class it with the theatre and sports which do not involve mechanical power.

Mr. George Thomas: And bicycles.

Mr. Jay: And, as my hon. Friend says, bicycles. The first thing to do in examining that issue is to be clear about the nature of the distinction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Alder-shot (Mr. Lyttelton) the other day amused himself and me a great deal by talking about the racing of elephants, golf balls and so forth. He was rather inaccurate in supposing that the official distinction between these two rates of tax is based on the fact that only live activities are subject to the lower rate. Nor is it due to the skill of the human performer. The real basis of distinction is that the concession is given where the human performer's efforts are not supplemented by mechanical power or based on the speed of animals.

Mr. Lyttelton: Or cat-gut.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Jay: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to tennis.

Mr. Lyttelton: No. I was referring to the violin, and it will be within the recollection of the Committee that that is played by the aid of mechanical means.

Mr. Jay: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that I said mechanical power and not mechanical means. If hon. Members will co-operate in trying to follow the logic of my argument, they will see that it cannot reasonably be argued that speedway racing falls into the group where the player is not supplemented by mechanical power.
Perhaps I might examine one by one the arguments advanced this afternoon in supporting this new Clause. First of all, it is said that there is no betting at speedway tracks. Betting has, however, nothing to do with the distinction, and never has had. In any case, there is no betting at cinemas, so that that does not carry us very far. Next it is said that speedway racing—and I have no doubt it is true—is frequently attended by the family. So is the cinema. Again, it is said that speedway racing is clean and an outdoor activity. But dog racing and horse racing are surely outdoor activities.
I do not know why it is thought that cinema-going should be less clean than speedway racing. Certainly that is not an argument which the Government could advance to the cinema industry or to Parliament as a good reason for imposing a higher rate of tax on the cinema than on the speedway. If we tried to do it, hon. Members would make just as eloquent speeches about discrimination against the cinemas as they have done today about speedway racing.
Alternatively, it is suggested that we can get over this difficulty by making the lower rate of duty apply where the result is dependent on the skill of the driver. Surely the horse-racing fraternity could then argue—and I speak here diffidently—that, in handicap races anyway, the result is dependent on the skill of the rider. I do not want to compete with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House or the Leader of the Opposition in knowledge of such operations, but I should be very reluctant to come forward and argue in this Committee that the result of horse racing is not dependent on the skill of the rider. Indeed, could not the cinemas maintain—is it not at least as good an argument?—that the success of films is dependent primarily on the human skill of the actors and producers, and that the reproducing mechanism is also a piece of standard mechanical equipment? I think that that point could be argued with great force.
It was argued by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare that canned entertainment, as he put it, could be distinguished and placed on a different rate of tax from uncanned entertainment—or whatever the opposite kind of entertainment would be called. When he argued that, as he was entitled to do, he argued, in

reality, for a special tax on the cinema, because horse racing and dog racing are not mechanically produced to the spectators. That is where his argument would lead.
If one has to be moved, not by enthusiasm for speedway racing or some other form of entertainment, but by the logic and equity on which any defensible tax must be based, one is forced to the conclusion that, so long as the present distinction between those two rates of tax remains in force, we could not conscientiously defend the removal of speedway racing from the group which includes all other forms of racing, and the cinema industry.
It also seems to us that the enthusiasts for speedway racing are somewhat exaggerating the burden of the tax, when we reflect that the average price of the typical seat is 1s. 9d. and that the increase proposed in the Budget is only 2d. Secondly, I should like to emphasise that in the present consultations with the cinema interests about the possible modifications of the Budget scheme—on which we are also, of course, consulting the speedway proprietors—we have kept the present problem, and the representations made to us by hon. Members in the last few weeks, very much in mind.
Though I want to be as frank as possible with the Committee—there has been a lot of candour this afternoon—I am in a difficulty in giving too many particulars about discussions which are actually going on with these industries at the present moment; but I can say that, under the proposals which the Government have now put forward, it would be open to the speedways not to make any increase at all in the present price of seats up to 2s.—that is, present price, tax inclusive—and also to pay no increase in duty on those seats. There would be an option for the speedway owners to raise prices, but if they did so it would be because, in their judgment, the public were willing and able to pay such higher prices. If they did raise prices higher revenue would accrue to the promoters, and would presumably assist them to carry on.
It seems to us that those proposals go some way, at any rate, to meet the anxieties of my hon. Friends. Naturally we hope to make further progress in these consultations before the Report stage of the Bill. In addition, I can give an assurance to hon. Members on behalf of my


right hon. Friend the Chancellor. In view of the admitted difficulties caused by the present double rate of tax, which I have tried to explain this afternoon, we will review the whole structure of the Entertainments Duty before next year, taking account of the trends in speedway takings in the course of this summer, to see whether there is any possible way of meeting the genuine feelings and anxieties which this distinction obviously raises, without losing revenue which at the present time we must have.
The difficulties of the Entertainments Duty, I must warn the Committee, are very great; and we can only say that we will do our best. Hon. Members may remember that we gave a similar undertaking a year ago about the possibility of making reductions in Purchase Tax on household necessities in this Budget. We spent a very great deal of time and labour on that and, as the Committee knows, we were able to carry out that undertaking. Our undertaking in the case of Entertainments Duty is given in the same spirit.
On that understanding, and for all the reasons which I have tried to put candidly before the Committee, I must ask the Committee not to accept the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Lyttelton: I find the pledge which the Financial Secretary has given rather difficult to follow. Is it a pledge which

could in any circumstances involve less money being taken out of the speedway racing industry or not, or merely for getting more revenue and reducing the incidence on what is described as the "typical ticket"? We ought to be quite clear where we are getting. If there is to be no reduction in the total I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has met the case which was put before the Committee.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): We will review the whole structure of the present Entertainments Duty. What has been said this afternoon indicates the real difficulty before us. I am not going to say that there will be an easy solution to the problem, but I am satisfied that we have to look at it and try to find some solution. That does not rule out the possibilty of taking less money, as the right hon. Gentleman has just put it, from the speedway tracks.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley)rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 297.

Division No. 136.]
AYES
[6.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
De la Bère, R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Deedes, W. F.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Digby, S. Wingfield


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Arbuthnot, John
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Donner, P. W.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Burden, F. A.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Butcher, H. W.
Drayson, G. B.


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W 'ld'n)
Drewe, C.


Baker, P. A. D.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Carson, Hon. E.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Channon, H.
Dunglass, Lord


Banks, Col. C.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Duthie, W. S.


Baxter, A. B.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Eccles, D. M.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Bell, R. M.
Clyde, J. L.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Colegate, A.
Erroll, F. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fisher, Nigel


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Corbett. Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Fort, R.


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Taxteth)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Foster, John


Birch, Nigel
Cranborne, Viscount
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Bishop, F. P.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Black, C. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Crouch, R. F.
Gage, C. H.


Boothby, R.
Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Bossom, A. C.
Crowder, Petre (Ruistip—Northwood)
Gammans, L. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cundiff, F. W.
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Cuthbert, W. N.
Gates, Maj. E. E.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Braine, B. R.
Davidson, Viscountess
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
de Chair, Somerset
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)




Harden, J. R. E.
McAdden, S. J.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Savory, Prof, D. L.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
McKibbin, A.
Scott, Donald


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Shepherd, William


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maclay, Hon. John
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Hay, John
Maclean, Fitzroy
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Head, Brig. A. H.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir Cuthbert
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Snadden, W. McN


Heald, Lionel
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Soames, Capt. C.


Heath, Edward
Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stevens, G. P.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maude, John (Exeter)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maudling, R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hollis, M. C.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Storey, S.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Mellor, Sir John
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hope, Lord John
Molson, A. H. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hopkinson, Henry
Monckton, Sir Walter
Studholme, H. G.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Summers, G. S.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Sutcliffe, H.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nabarro, G.
Teeling, W.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)
Nicholls, Harmar
Teevan, T. L.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicholson, G.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hurd, A. R.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)


Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr R. (Croydon, W.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)


Hutchison, Col. James (Glasgow)
Nutting, Anthony
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Oakshott, H. D.
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.


Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Odey, G. W.
Tilney, John


Jeffreys, General Sir George
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Turner, H. F. L.


Jennings, R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Turton, R. H.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Kaberry, D.
Osborne, C.
Vosper, D. F.


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Langford-Holt, J.
Pitman, I. J.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Powell, J. Enoch
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Leather, E. H. C.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Watkinson, H.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Profumo, J. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lindsay, Martin
Raikes, H. V.
Wheatley, Maj. M. J. (Poole)


Linstead, H. N
Rayner, Brig. R.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Llewellyn, D.
Redmayne, M.
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Renton, D. L. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Wills, G.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Low, A. R. W.
Robson-Brown, W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
York, C.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Roper, Sir Harold



Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Russell, R. S.
Major Conant and




Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Benson, G.
Burke, W. A.


Adams, Richard
Beswick, F.
Burton, Miss E.


Albu, A. H.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bing, G. H. C.
Callaghan, L. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blenkinsop, A.
Carmichael, J.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Blyton, W. R.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Boardman, H.
Champion, A. J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Booth, A.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Bottomley, A. G.
Clunie, J.


Ayles, W. H.
Bowden, H. W.
Cooks, F. S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Coldrick, W.


Baird, J.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Collick, P.


Balfour, A.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Collindridge, F.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Cook, T. F.


Bartley, P.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Cooper, John (Deptford)


Benn, Wedgwood
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)




Cove, W. G.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pryde, D. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Crawley, A.
Janner, B.
Rankin, J.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jay, D. P. T.
Rees, Mrs. D.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reeves, J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras. S.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Daines, P.
Jenkins, R. H.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rhodes, H.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Richards, R.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Deer, G.
Keenan, W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William


Dodds, N. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Royle, C.


Donnelly, D.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir. Hartley


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Kinley, J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Dye, S.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Edelman, M.
Lee, Mist Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lindgren, G. S
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir. Frank


Ewart, R.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Sparks, J. A.


Fernyhough, E.
McAllister, G.
Steele, T.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Finch, H. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McGovern, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Follick, M.
McInnes, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Foot, M. M.
Mack, J. D.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Forman, J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Freeman, John (Watford)
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Glanville, James (Consett)
Manuel, A. C.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gooch, E. G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, J.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Tomney, F.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mellish, R. J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Messer, F.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Usborne, H.


Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian.
Vernon, W. F.


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moeran, E. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Monslow, W.
Watkins, T. E.


Grimond, J.
Moody, A. S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Gunter, R. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Weitzman, D.


Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Morley, R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colns Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
West, D. G.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mort, D. L.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh E.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Moyle, A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hannan, W.
Mulley, F. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hardman, D. R.
Murray, J. D.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hardy, E. A.
Nally, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hargreaves, A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hastings, S.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wilkes, L.


Hayman, F. H.
Oldfield, W. H.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Tipton)
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Herbison, Miss M.
Orbach, M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hobson, C. R.
Paget R. T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Holman, P.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Houghton, D.
Panned, T. C.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hoy, J.
Pargiter, G. A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hubbard, T.
Parker, J.
Wise, F. J.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paton, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, A.
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, T. F.
Wyatt, W. L.


Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)
Popplewell, E.
Yates, V. F.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Porter, G.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)



Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Wilkins and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.


Question put, and agreed to.

New Clause.—(EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAX OF FIRE-CALL ATTENDANCE AND TURN-OUT FEES OF PART-TIME RETAINED VOLUNTARY FIREMEN.)

(1) Any fees paid to part-time retained voluntary firemen for responding to fire calls, and referred to by statute as fire-call attendance and turn-out fees, shall not be regarded as income for any of the purposes of the income Tax Acts.

(2) This section shall have effect from the beginning of the year 1951–52.—[Mr. Hopkinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Henry Hopkinson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to exempt from Income Tax the fees paid to part-time retained voluntary firemen known as attendance and turn-out fees. It is in no sense a party issue, and I hope that I shall receive support from all sides of the Committee. It affects directly only a limited number of people, the firemen themselves, but indirectly it affects the whole population of the country.
I should like briefly to explain to The Committee the position of the part-time retained firemen. These voluntary firemen have an authorised establishment of 21,375 and form the entire staff of most of the smaller fire stations of the country and part of the staff of the stations in many of our larger towns. They are all volunteers, who carry on their duties in addition to their normal work. They receive three forms of remuneration. There is a retaining fee rising from £15 a year in the case of the ordinary fireman to £45 a year in the case of the station officer. Secondly, there is a turn-out fee of 10s. for the first two hours of a fire and 3s. for each subsequent hour. Finally, there is a fire-call attendance fee of 5 s. an hour for each attendance at the fire station.
Until recently, these fireman have always assumed that these fees were free of Income Tax. I understand that before the war there was no question of levying tax. Even in the National Fire Service in the war many of the fees paid to the part-time firemen were not subject to tax but were treated as subsistence allowances. It was not until the National Fire Service was transferred to the local authorities under the Fire Service Act, 1947, that any general attempt was made to secure

payment of Income Tax, either on retaining fees or on the fire-call and turn-out fees. Since the transfer, however, receding of Income Tax assessments on the wages of part-time firemen for their normal occupations has been extensively carried out and has caused great hardship and indignation amongst the part-time firemen.
As hon. Members will realise, fire fighting is an extremely arduous and dangerous job which calls for a high standard of physical endurance and courage, and the firemen have to be ready to get into their uniforms at any time of the day or night in a matter of seconds. The average attendance is 30 fires a year, and it is quite common for the retained part-time firemen to be engaged all night on a fire and even have to follow their normal occupations the following day. Hon. Members in this Committee will appreciate better today than they did a few days ago exactly what this means. Fire fighting also involves a tremendous amount of extra work on the womenfolk of the family, in washing and drying uniforms after fires, in making cups of tea when they come in during the night and so forth.
There is no doubt that the firemen have a real grievance on purely financial grounds over their treatment, but there is a good deal more to it than that. These men joined the voluntary fire service not just in order to add to their emoluments. They joined because they regarded it as a duty towards humanity and, like the lifeboat men who are in a similar position, they have a real feeling that they are carrying out an humanitarian mission, something which often involves the risk of injury or loss of life to themselves. Unlike other part-time jobs, both the retained firemen and lifeboat men have no option but to go out when they are called. There are, therefore, strong arguments on what might be called moral grounds for exempting them from payment of Income Tax on these fees.
Finally, there are also strong practical grounds for doing so. The part-time firemen in England and Wales at the present time number only approximately 14,000; that is to say they are 5,000 down on their establishment. In Scotland they number 1,958 out of an establishment of 2,375. The discontent amongst all ranks of the part-time fire service is such that, while


there has never been any suggestion of a strike, many men feel that there is no proper appreciation of their services to the community. Although they would like to continue in this work, there are liable to be widespread resignations if this feeling of dissatisfaction persists. If this takes place, it will be a most serious matter for the country both on practical and on financial grounds.
6.45 p.m.
As I said before, the part-time retained firemen form the entire staff of the smaller fire stations. The approximate cost of maintaining a retained part-time fireman is £85 a year. The equivalent figure for a full-time man is £510. These amounts cover more than the actual remuneration paid to the firemen. They include an allowance for overhead charges in connection with the provisions and maintenance of buildings, equipment, uniform, and so forth.
Here it should be noted that far more exacting standards of accommodation are needed for the whole-time personnel than for the part-time retained firemen. Moreover, because of the necessity for shifts, three full-time men are required to replace one part-time man, so that the difference in cost is £1,530 for a full-time man as against £85 for the part-time man. If that is worked out, it means that the resignation and replacement of only 1,000 voluntary firemen by full-time men would cost the country an additional sum of £1½ million a year.
On 4th June I presented to the House a petition signed by 11,237 men of the part-time fire service of England and Wales. In this petition the men did not ask for remission of Income Tax on their retaining fee, which, they admit, it is reasonable to regard as a payment falling under the accepted expression of a wage. On the other hand, they consider that the small payments made for attendance at fires, or standing by at fire stations during fires, do not come into the same category, and they demand urgently that these fees should be exempted from tax.
I am well aware of the general objections to making exceptions from the principle that Income Tax is a tax of income and should be measured solely by the ability of the taxpayer to pay. But the fact is that exceptions have been made by the Treasury to this principle. For

example, there is the exemption from tax on training and expenses allowances and bounties for Territorials granted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1947. The training allowance, which is in fact a subsistence allowance, and the bounty were exempted from Income Tax. That is the very reason for which I am now asking for exemption of tax for the voluntary firemen.
It is true that the Chancellor at that time made it clear that this should not be regarded as a precedent to other classes of cases, but I claim that the objects of the concession in the case of the Territorial Army were exactly the same as those in the case of the part-time voluntary firemen; that is to say, the need to encourage recruiting, and also the saving to public funds if the jobs in question had to be filled by regular full-time personnel instead of part-time volunteers.
Moreover, in Clause 20 of this Bill there is a further exception made by the Chancellor when he grants exemption from tax on the bounties of the Class Z reservists and on ex-soldiers who volunteer for re-enlistment. This case appears to me almost exactly analogous to that of the part-time retained fireman. Finally, and this seems to me conclusive, there is the fact that the part-time retained voluntary lifeboat men are already exempted from tax on the first £50 of their retaining fees. I claim that the retained firemen are in exactly the same position as the retained lifeboat men.
As I say, they are not asking for exemption from tax on the retaining fees. All they are asking for is exemption from tax on these small attendance and turn out fees. The total cost to the Treasury would only be £100,000 a year. When that is measured against the figure I have given of a possible increase of £1½ million a year if 1,000 men were to resign from this part-time service, the Committee will agree that it is in the national interest that these men should be exempted from tax.
Having regard, firstly, to the serious lack of recruits; secondly, to the danger of the depletion of the part-time service; thirdly, to the risk of heavy increases in cost if full-time men have to be brought in as replacements; and finally, and last but not least, to the feeling of very great bitterness and injustice amongst the men


at what they regard as an act of ingratitude on the part of the community towards them for the self-sacrificing work which they carry on, I most strongly urge upon the Chancellor that he should accept this Clause and bring the part-time retained firemen into line with the lifeboat men and the other classes of persons who enjoy similar exemptions.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hopkinson) urges us to exempt from Income Tax the fire-call attendants and turn-out fees of part-time retained voluntary firemen. We must all sympathise with a great deal of what the hon. Member has said. I entirely agree that these men perform the most valuable public-spirited services, and I am sure he was right in saying that they show physical endurance and courage and that many of them take up this work out of a sense of duty rather than simply from a desire to earn a higher income.
The fact is, however, as the hon. Member himself said, that these fees, in our opinion at any rate, are unquestionably of the nature of income. They are a payment for services, and under our Income Tax law, as I think the Committee will agree, it is an absolute cardinal principle that payments for services should be subject to Income Tax.
There are, of course, many other member of the community doing, as I think the hon. Member will agree, equally valuable and public-spirited service. There are miners' rescue squads, for instance, and indeed we have to remember that throughout both World Wars men in the Army, Navy and Air Force who were actually engaged in fighting paid Income Tax on their Service pay.
The only additional argument advanced by the hon. Member was that a certain concession had been made in regard to bounties and some special payments to Territorials and to Class Z Reservists this year. In those once-for-all payments there is really a considerable element of compensation for disturbance in the case of people who are suddenly switched from civil to military life, very often unexpectedly.
In addition, may I remind the hon. Member that when my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Local Government and Planning made that concession in 1947, not merely did he say that

it must be unique in the Income Tax structure and that the Income Tax structure was to be maintained, but that Mr. Oliver Stanley, replying in that debate for the Opposition, said:
The time may come when we will press more concessions upon the Chancellor, but we shall not base those claims on the way in which he has met our request tonight."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 2368–9.]
It was rather on that understanding that that concession was given. Therefore, I am afraid that while we recognise the strength of all that the hon. Member said about the services of these men, we are bound to take the view that these payments to them are of the nature of income and therefore must continue to be liable to tax.

Mr. Leather: I am extremely sorry, as will be my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Hopkinson), to have heard the Financial Secretary's reply. He agreed with the humanitarian grounds of our argument but disagreed with the financial grounds. I believe, however, that not only our humanitarian, but also our financial, grounds are a little bit better than he gave us credit for, because in the illustrations which he used the hon. Gentleman referred to other people who did additional work. He referred to miners' rescue squads and to men in the Armed Forces. I should be the last person to detract in any way from the services that those people render, but there is a very clear distinction between their services and those of the people to whom the Clause relates.
In the instances given by the Financial Secretary, the services which those people render are in direct line with their normal job; they are associated with and arise from their normal job of work, and therefore it can be said that their services are part of their normal function. In the case of the voluntary fireman, that is not so. His voluntary fire service is entirely a social gift to the community and bears no relation whatsoever to his normal work. During the rest of the time the income which he draws, and on which he pays his normal tax, may be from one of a thousand different jobs—the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, or anything else.
The job which is done by the voluntary fireman is something quite exceptional.


It is a duty and a service to the community over and above his normal contribution as a hard-working citizen. Therefore, to that extent it is entirely exceptional.

Mr. Shurmer: I think the hon. Member will agree that quite a number of large establishments have their own works fire brigades, in which the men are protecting the works from which they are getting their living.

Mr. Leather: I quite agree, but those are full-time, paid men.

Mr. Shurmer: No, they are voluntary.

Mr. Leather: Even if they are voluntary fire brigades, the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) once again is confirming my point. Those people are doing jobs of work connected with their regular employment, but the men of whom I am talking are not.

Mr. Shurmer: The men to whom I have referred are actually working for big firms and are engaged in a voluntary fire brigade. Very often they are protecting the factory in which they work.

Mr. Leather: The hon. Member is perfectly right, but I think that what he says is irrelevant to this issue.
One further issue which I should like to raise to the Chancellor and which bears upon this point is that these men are already, by any standards, hopelessly underpaid. The Financial Secretary quite fairly told us that we must not refer to the lifeboatmen as a precedent. I will therefore use them, not as a precedent, but as a comparison. The Financial Secretary admitted that the concession given by the Chancellor in 1947 exempted the lifeboatmen up to the first £50. That £50 which he exempted is probably more than the average voluntary fireman earns in a whole year by the fees which we are asking should be exempted. Their average yearly total is only about £85, and for some men is less than that, and this figure includes the proportion of attendance fees on which we are not asking for exemption.
Furthermore, these men have not had any pay increase whatsoever for their services since, I think, 1941. Therefore, to keep their fees down to that very low pre-war level and then, after seven or

eight years, suddenly to slap on Income Tax as well, makes it appear to them that the authorities are going for them in a way that is quite unjustified in view of, I repeat, their additional contribution over and above what most people give to the social good.
This matter is of great concern to us in the countryside. To hon. Members in the cities it means nothing, because they have big full-time staffs in elaborate stations. In the countryside, however, the danger of fire and the danger to life and property is bad enough at the best of times. It can be coped with only by the voluntary firemen, unless the Treasury are prepared to face the greatly increased costs to which my hon. Friend has already referred.
Recruitment in the service is going down because the men really feel that they have a grievance. I assure the Chancellor—and hon. Members opposite who have had experience of these men will agree—that I have received deputations, have been to the stations, and have seen these men, who really have a grievance. It is not some trumped-up idea just to try to get a little more money from somewhere. The money they get is pitiful enough at the best of times, but by discouraging recruiting and giving them a grievance the Government are making greater the risks in the villages and small towns where these men serve.
The injustice which is being done to them is false economy, because we are getting to the stage where the Government will have to face a continued and increasing breakdown in the voluntary fire services. We are very near to that point, and if it happens the Chancellor will have to find, not £100,000, but several million pounds to make up the damage which is being done very largely by the Treasury's rigid insistence. I urge the Chancellor seriously to think again.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: I should like to reinforce what has been said about the shortage of part-time firemen. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary has had correspondence with the local authorities on this subject, which is a matter of very deep concern to them, and I wish to explain the latest position.
I do not know whether the Financial Secretary is aware that the conditions of service of all local authority fire brigade personnel are negotiated by a body called the National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire Brigades. Part-time service has not had quite the representation it deserves on that body for the simple reason that this National Joint Council has been exceedingly busy since 1948 negotiating conditions of service for full-time personnel. Part-time personnel are for the most part organised by the British Fire Services Association, which has not any representation on the National Joint Council.
The officer ranks among the part-timers are looked after by the National Association of Fire Officers, but the junior ranks among the part-time firemen, for the most part, belong to the British Fire Services Association and have not had very much consideration given to their conditions of service in recent years. Their last increase was about 1944, but they have not had any increase since then.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond): I hope the hon. Member is going to relate his remarks to the Clause, Which deals with Income Tax on remuneration however decided.

Mr. Harris: I am coming to that almost immediately. Things have now reached a stage when those in part-time service are so dissatisfied with so many leaving and so few recruits coming in, that local authorities are concerned about the position. On 30th November, 1950, the employers' side wrote to the employee's side and said that there was a considerable deficiency in the establishment of part-time personnel which was causing concern to the fire authorities, such concern that the employers came forward and proposed an increase in the fees for these part-time officers. It is almost unprecedented for employers to offer an increase because things are so bad.
One method of removing the cause of discontent would be for the Financial Secretary to see his way to exempting these turn-out fees and attendance fees from Income Tax. There are four forms of payment. There is a retainer fee, a turn-out fee, an attendance fee, and an hourly rate. The turn-out fee for firemen is at the rate of 10s. for the first two

hours, the attendance fee is 5s. for standing by in the event of a fire, or turning out for drills, and the hourly rate is for periods in excess of the first two hours. It is the turn-out fee and the hourly rate, which is 3s. for the fireman for the first two hours, and only those two forms of payment out of the four I have mentioned that we are asking the Financial Secretary to consider.
With the increasing cost of living, men in this voluntary service are finding that although the payment does net them a small remuneration it is becoming less. If a man does his job properly at a fire he is soaked through within half an hour. Except possibly for a heath fire, a fireman is soaked through in the first half hour, and whatever precautions one takes, dirt gets down one's collar and up one's sleeves. Everything a man is wearing, shirts, underclothing and socks, has to be washed. A man may have to attend two or three fires in a day. That can often happen. Then there is the additional wear on clothing—the wear from use, as well as the wear from washing. One of the infuriating things, not only for the part-time but also for the full-time fireman, is that it is not possible to ask for a rebate on the extra expense incurred.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Would not increased wages be a better way?

Mr. Harris: That is one way, but a better way would be to exempt these fees from tax. It is not very much. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Hopkinson) put down a Question asking what the concession would cost and was told it would be £100,000. I am surprised that the figure was so high, and I am wondering whether some of the other payments have not also been taken into account. The sum of £100,000 merely for tax on turn-out and hourly rates is very high indeed, and I wonder if the Financial Secretary could check that figure.
As well as the extra cost of laundry, there is the extra cost of lighting and heating which other people do not have to meet. In the case of some full-time firemen the local authority gives free fuel and light, but for the part-time fireman who lives at home there is no compensation for these very necessary expenses which go with this voluntary job. I ask


the Financial Secretary to reconsider the matter and try to make some offer to assist part-time firemen and also local authorities.

Mr. Houghton: All those of us representing rural areas will associate ourselves with the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), to the work of voluntary part-time firemen. I have a number in my constituency, and for their fire-call they use the wailing note of the all clear of the air raid warning which was used during the war and always sends a shiver down my back. When that goes I know that these voluntary firemen are mounting their bicycles and rushing to the fire station to report for duty.
Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), put his finger on the point by his question. Hon. Members opposite are asking to be done through taxation relief what most of us have to ask our employers to do—to increase our pay. It is quite wrong in principle to seek increases in pay through remissions in taxation for one particular section of the workers, however laudable their task and worthy their case.
I frequently say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to give more wage increases than employers because he is the only person who can give a wage increase free of tax by remission of tax. If the Chancellor is in the position to do that for workers as a whole it will be perfectly right and proper and we shall all share in the benefit we can get. But here is a case where workers—voluntary part-time firemen are workers—are seeking improvements in pay by means of remission of Income Tax. That is what it amounts to.
I ask hon. Members opposite why, if voluntary part-time firemen have asked for an increase in pay, they have not got it if the numbers required for the strength of the fire service are seriously falling? We ought to be told why the Chancellor is being asked to give a wage increase to the voluntary part-time firemen which the employer has not been asked to give or has refused to give.

Mr. Leather: I am sorry if in trying to bring in a subsequent argument to support my case I misled the hon. Member. We are not asking for an increase in pay. We shall ask for that at the proper

time and place. We feel strongly that there is a point of principle in regard to these fees which the Government are overriding. I introduced the question of pay to show how the position is aggravated, but it has nothing to do with the specific case we are putting to the Chancellor.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I want to reinforce the plea which has been made to the Government. Like many other hon. Members, I know a lot about this case because most of my constituency is protected by firemen such as these we are discussing. I appreciate that there is a Treasury difficulty here and that the logical answer is the one given by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), which was suggested by his hon. Friend, and that is to increase the emoluments these people are receiving from their employers.
That is the obvious answer, but it is not so simple as that. If the fees were doubled, as they would have to be to provide for the tax to which they would be subject, that would be a minimum rate. Once we started a wage rise of that sort the whole matter would be on an entirely different basis, and we should have the representatives of the firemen initiating negotiations for an emolument for firemen based on a non-voluntary principle and we should get a subsidiary paid fire service with something of the relationship of the War Reserve to the regular Police Force. That is not what these people want. They want to be able to maintain their spirit of having a mission and a function in a voluntary capacity for the good of the community and to be able to do so without being put to expense.
I suggest that this is not so much a legislative as an administrative matter. In days gone by these receipts for firemen were not calculated as included under Schedule E for assessment. That cannot have been owing to ignorance on the part of the Inland Revenue, because many members of the Inland Revenue must also have been part-time firemen and must have been aware of the facts of the case. That having been done, there is surely a perfectly justifiable administrative assumption that these emoluments are nothing but clearances of expenses. If it were admissible, I am sure that any fireman would be able to justify expenditure


to the extent of the receipts under the two headings. That is an easy way of dealing with the matter and the most economical method. It is also the most simple way administratively, and it is in accordance with normal taxation principles.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I should not like it to go out that we are not sympathetically inclined towards the moral grounds which have been raised. I was the chairman of a fire brigade for many years, and I turned out with the men for fires and for practice. I also know something about having to deal with fires in my daily duties before I came to the House of Commons. The difference between myself and Tory Members is that I have dealt with fires before I die whereas they will have to deal with them afterwards.
It is not the case that voluntary firemen really want a tax remission. What they want is a fair reward, after tax has been deducted, for the wear and tear caused by the duties thrust upon them in fighting fires. These men have been to see me in my area. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hopkinson). I think he libels this fine set of men in suggesting that if they do not get this tax remission they will resign. That is a libel on a very fine force of men. I know that for certain reasons there may be a lack of enthusiasm to join the service. I agree with the hon. Member as far as that. But I would never go so far as to suggest that if this remission is not granted the men in the service will resign. That is not true.

Mr. Hopkinson: I did not suggest that they would resign as a direct result of not getting this remission. All I say is that it is the basis of the present seepage from the service. Great encouragement would be given if this remission were granted.

Mr. Jones: That is much better than what I understood the hon. Gentleman originally to say. I agree that it is difficult to get men to volunteer to perform this most onerous duty. At the end of an arduous period of fire fighting, with all the dirt, grime, smoke, dust, filth, wet shoes and everything else, they want some tangible reward for having done this most difficult task in the interests of their neighbours and friends.
This is a wage problem, not a tax problem. If this remission were given, what would happen? We should open the door for every other category in the country in which there is an abnormal situation. The engineer who, because of a breakdown in the works, is called upon to work overtime will want tax remission on the money he is paid for that overtime. The Government should, so far as is practicable, encourage the authorities responsible to give these men slightly more, so that they are rewarded for doing an onerous duty in the interests of the country.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), apart from one provocative remark to which I shall not attempt to reply, has emphasised that there is emerging from this debate a general desire in the Committee for something to be done for these firemen. There is, however, a difference of method. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the hon. Member for Rotherham have said—and it is an obvious point of view—that this is a question of wages; but on a Finance Bill we can only attempt the method suggested by my hon. Friend, which is that there should be some tax concession.
I say at once, that I realise the difficulty of the Financial Secretary. It is a difficulty with which he will be confronted for a good many hours, because we have now commenced what I have already described as the "annual parade" of deserving things for tax remission. I have sat behind Chancellors of the Exchequer as well as opposite them, and I know that at this stage of the Finance Bill they have to harden their hearts for fear of a breach, however small, in the Revenue front which they have set up under the Budget. I therefore feel that those who seek concessions must point to some precedent, and to a precedent which will enable the Financial Secretary, out of the kindness of his heart, to do what he really wishes to do without a breach, at any rate in principle, of his Revenue front.
I suggest that there is a method by which the hon. Gentleman can meet this request, although not perhaps in precisely the way laid down in this proposed new Clause. The Finance Act, 1947, did, it


is true, exempt the Territorial bounty from Income Tax, and the Financial Secretary is quite right in saying that the present Minister of Local Government and Planning described it at that time as a unique concession. But it has not proved to be a unique concession, because we are doing very much the same thing this year for the Z Reservists. I always think that any Chancellor makes a mistake when he uses the word "unique," because we never know what is round the corner, or what is coming next. It is no longer unique. The Z Reservists made their way through that particular gap in the Revenue front.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) was, I think, not quite accurate—the Financial Secretary will be able to confirm or deny it—when he said that the exemption on the first £50 paid to lifeboat men was the result of a Finance Act. I think it was the result of an administrative regulation.

Mr. Jay: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is incorrect in saying that there is any exemption on the remuneration of lifeboat crews.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is there no exemption on the first £50?

Mr. Jay: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that is not the case.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: They get an expenses allowance.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: If what the Financial Secretary says is true, then I am sorry to say that my argument is destroyed, because I was going to suggest that if the first £50 of remuneration to lifeboat crews is exempt, the same might apply to firemen, although I think it might be more expensive to the Treasury than the new Clause proposes. However, if the Financial Secretary assures us that we are wrong about that, I am afraid, Mr. Diamond, that I caught your eye almost in vain.
However, I think this matter might be looked at again. The hon. Member for Rotherham, who said that local authorities might be more generous in the wages they pay, has a strong argument, but it cannot be discussed now. It will have to be transferred to the arena of party politics and discussed in connection with the Election.
I am sorry if nothing at all can be done. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Hopkinson) does not intend to take up the time of the Committee by pressing this matter to a Division, and perhaps that is all the more reason for favourable consideration. Could these part-time firemen not at least come within the same ambit of thought and cogitation as the speedways? Could we not be told between now and next year—that would be a very safe reply for the Government to give—that the whole matter will be reviewed and the whole basis reconsidered? If the Financial Secretary would say that, it would be a word of cheer for these admirable men.

Mr. Hopkinson: I intend to detain the Committee a very few minutes more. It may be that the lifeboat men do not receive this £50 on their retaining fee, but it is given to them, I understand, by administrative regulation as expenses in some form or another. I suggest that the Financial Secretary should look at that again and see whether that is not so.
One or two hon. Members opposite have said that this is really a question of wages. I maintain that that is not so. It is not at all the mood in which the firemen have come to me. This is a psychological question. The men are not concerned about these very small payments but feel that they are not getting the gratitude of the community in the way that they deserve, and they feel that very strongly.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I know of no better case than when the nurses were in the same position. Everybody admitted the great service they were rendering but nobody was prepared to pay them. It is as a result of organising themselves that their status has increased.

Mr. Hopkinson: They are employed whole-time. These men do not ask for increased wages. They ask for exemption from Income Tax. About 12,000 of them have signed a petition to Parliament asking for just that. That is what they want. I hope that between now and the Report stage the Financial Secretary will be able to reconsider this matter and devise some means of meeting our wishes. If it cannot be in the way I am suggesting, will he look at this administrative regulation which I understand exists in the


case of lifeboat men and see whether he can apply the same sort of thing to retained part-time firemen? If that is not possible, will he consider making representations to the local authorities to make increases in the retaining fees, fire attendance fees and turn-out fees which is what hon. Members opposite have suggested? It is not what the firemen want but it would be better than nothing. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(ALLOWANCE FOR TRAVEL-LING EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF DISABLED PERSONS.)

(1) If it is shown in the case of a person assessed to income tax under Schedule D or Schedule E in respect of any earned income that by reason of his being a disabled person he is obliged to incur and defray out of such earned income additional expense in travelling by a motor car invalid carriage or other mechanically-propelled vehicle between his residence and his work, the additional expense so incurred and defrayed shall be allowed as a deduction from the earned income in computing the amount of the assessment thereon, so however that not more than fifty pounds shall be so allowed in the case of any person in any year.

(2) If it is shown in the case of a person holding a public office or employment not being an office or employment of profit that by reason of his being a disabled person he is obliged to incur and defray additional expense in travelling by a motor car invalid carriage or other mechanically-propelled vehicle between his residence and his work or in travelling in the performance of the duties of the office or employment; the additional expense so incurred and defrayed shall be deducted from or set off against any income of that person for the year of assessment in which the additional expense is so incurred and defrayed and tax shall where necessary be discharged or repaid accordingly and the total income of that person for that year of assessment shall be calculated accordingly for all the purposes of the Income Tax Acts, so however that not more than fifty pounds shall be so allowed in the case of any person in any year.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) the expression "disabled person" means a person who, on account of injury, disease, or congenital deformity, is substantially handicapped in travelling between his residence and his work except by means of a motor car or invalid chair;
(b) the expression "earned income" means earned income as defined in subsection (3) of section fourteen of the Income Tax Act, 1918;
(c) the expression "public office or employment" means any office or employment

belonging to any court of justice in the United Kingdom or under any public institution or on any public foundation of whatever nature or under any local authority or in connexion with any body of persons established for charitable purposes only.—[Sir I. Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Ian Fraser: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Those of us whose names are attached to this new Clause have undertaken to discuss this matter as briefly as possible, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee will not take that attitude of ours as indicating that we regard this as an unimportant case. On the contrary, to those concerned it is a very important case, but we have agreed to be very brief out of consideration for the Committee as a whole in the vast programme which it has ahead of it, and also because we feel that the disabled people for whom we speak would not wish in any way to take advantage of the Committee but rather to try and secure the good will of all parts of it. This is not in any sense a party matter, or perhaps I might say that it is an all-party matter—a matter in which Members of all parties will, I hope, feel that they are interested.
In a country where there is full employment, an ageing community and a shortage of all kinds of labour, it is in the community's interest to try and make sure that as many disabled persons as possible undertake a useful job of work. I mention the aspect of the benefit to the community first because that is perhaps the most important aspect of the case. If we can see at work a million people or half a million, or whatever the number may be, who would otherwise be doing nothing, living on the dole, pensions and charity of their neighbours and of the community, it is a very great accession to our earning power as a country and to our tax-paying power and our defence power.
No one put this view more strongly than the late Mr. Bevin. He was amongst the pioneers in bringing to aid the full employment of the disabled all the resources of the State. All those who cherish his memory and the exceptional services which he rendered in this field will perhaps listen with special attention to the plea I propose to make.
A very large number of disabled people—perhaps more than half of all of them—are able to undertake a job, and a few of them are only enabled to undertake a job if they can have a vehicle in which they can drive themselves to work. Whether it be a motor car provided by the Ministry of Pensions to a very limited number of special cases, or an invalid chair sometimes provided by the Ministry of Health, in several cases bought by the individual, or whether it be a motor car bought by the individual himself, there are a great many of these cases in which the only way they can get to work from home to office or factory is in their own transport. They cannot compete with the rush and bustle of public transport, and were it not for the motor car which they have saved up to buy, or which friends or organisations have helped them to get, they could not go to work.
7.30 p.m.
This Clause also deals with another group of disabled people—those who undertake voluntary work of different kinds. I would not try to measure the quality of work done which earns wages, salaries or fees with work done voluntary. Both are needed, both are important, and in both fields disabled persons have made, and can make, a very important contribution, whether it be on the bench of magistrates, in local political organisations, in the chairmanship of many local bodies in the villages and towns of our country or on local councils, or wherever it may be. There are a great many disabled people who do this work, and who can do it only if they are able to motor or to go by some kind of vehicle from place to place. That is why this Clause makes reference to these two kinds of people, those who earn and those who do not.
With Purchase Tax reaching its present height; with the Petrol Duty having been greatly increased, both this year and last year; with the cost of garages rising, whether one builds or hires or pays for a place in one; with repairs and tyres going to ever-higher prices, the cost of transport is a very real burden upon these people. Many of them, though employed, are not employed in as good a place or in as good work as they would have been if they were not disabled. We have put down this Clause because we think

it a way in which some of the distinctions between disabled people may be blotted out.
This does not apply exclusively to ex-Service men, nor does it apply exclusively to those who have received gifts of motor cars from the State. It applies to all who have to use a vehicle because they are disabled. Though there are no precedents for an allowance of this kind, and it is therefore a new proposal, there are precedents for the method used in the drafting of this new Clause. To those precedents my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield), should he catch your eye, Major Milner, will make what I believe to be convincing references.
At an earlier stage in the Bill, the Financial Secretary intimated that the Chancellor would give consideration to the case of a small number of persons who received their motor cars from the Ministry of Pensions, and would inquire whether the allowance they get is adequate. If he thought it was not, it is to be implied that he would authorise the Ministry of Pensions to increase it. This group to whom he is making this contingent concession, or at any rate this inquiry, is a group of some 1,500. The group to whom this Clause applies would be quite impossible to calculate. Clearly it cannot be more than a few thousand who are very deserving people.
On public and private grounds these individuals, battling away at a job of work against considerable physical difficulties, deserve the recognition of the community and the thanks of all of us. On those grounds I ask the Chancellor whether between now and the Report stage he will consider this matter, along with the other matter he has already promised to take into consideration, and will bring something to the House which will give very wide satisfaction among disabled people, and, I fancy, very wide satisfaction among taxpayers as a whole.

Mr. Wood: I wish to emphasise some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). I think I ought to declare an interest in this Clause, because I suppose if the Chancellor saw fit to accept it, or anything like it, I should be eligible for some benefit.
I feel that this Clause might be the best possible means of meeting the kind of case which both my hon. Friend and I put to the Financial Secretary on Clause 1. Also it might possibly be even more simple administratively than the kind of method or kind of suggestion we made on that occasion.
The third reason, and I think the greatest reason, for the Amendment is that I have been increasingly worried lately by the distinction which seems to be widening between those people who have been disabled in the wars and those other unfortunate people who have been disabled in their civilian occupation or by some accident. Although I think that a distinction to a certain extent is justified, I feel that we should be very watchful to see that that distinction is not drawn any wider. To illustrate this, I will read a letter which I received yesterday from a man who was disabled, but not in the war. He writes:
Take myself for instance. I have both my right arm and right leg amputated, also my left ankle is very weak. I and my wife put all our savings into obtaining a small car to enable one to go to work, which I have to travel 13½ miles each way, my wages are not very large and to keep the car on the road with all the cost of running keeps us poor, yet there is no help for us fellows, and many of us would rather work than just laze around.
I put to the Chancellor the same point as was made by my hon. Friend, that not the least in importance of the achievements of the late Mr. Bevin was his scraping of the barrel in the employment of all the disabled of the last war who could possibly be employed. I suggest that if the Chancellor sees fit to accept this Clause, or the spirit of it, on Report he will not only be treating all the disabled of both wars and the civilian disabled in the most equitable way, but he will give a great incentive to people like the writer of this letter who continue in employment despite the expense of travelling to and from their work in their own transport. He will also do the very greatest service to the disabled by maintaining as many as possible of them in full employment.

Mr. Messer: For anybody to oppose this Clause would appear to be unsympathetic. I played some part in the passage of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act and I think it would

be considered that I am not unsympathetic to disabled people; but I am very doubtful whether the Clause, as worded, would accomplish what is required.
For many years I have realised that these disabled people are at a disadvantage, not only physically but financially. In the case of blind people, for instance, it is not merely the absence of sight but the fact that the absence of sight in itself presses most seriously upon their financial resources, because it is necessary for them to pay for assistance. One can visualise handicapped people, who have to wear splints and surgical boots, to whom walking any distance is a very great difficulty, and who are compelled to ride even small journeys at an expense which the ordinary person is not called upon to bear. But I should like to help all disabled people.
I wonder whether if this Clause would help. It says:
If it is shown in the case of a person assessed to income tax under Schedule D…in respect of any earned income that by reason of his being a disabled person…
Who is to decide that a man is a disabled person? What is the degree of disability which will enable a person to qualify? Under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, one must have a medical examination and be placed on the register. This Clause says nothing about the Register of Disabled Persons.
My view is that the way to meet this is not by remission of taxation but by a re-examination of the provisions of the Disabled Persons Employment) Act to see in what way the financial disadvantages which result from a disabled condition can be made good. It would be better that that financial hardship which is a consequence of a disability should be recognised, and that in a positive way compensation for that handicap should be given. But to do it by a remission of Income Tax would mean that some people would benefit and that those who do not pay Income Tax would still be at a disadvantage in comparison with a normal person. They would get no advantage from this provision.
In the circumstances, it would be unfair to those who do not pay Income Tax that they still should suffer a financial disability, but that those who are qualified to pay Income Tax should get a remission. Because of that, I think that


the Chancellor would be justified in saying that this is a job which ought to be undertaken by one of the welfare Departments of the State and not by the Exchequer.

Mr. Basil Nield: I am anxious to support as strongly as I can the case which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), in seeking a tax allowance for travelling expenses in respect of disabled persons. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) does not feel that he can agree, at any rate fully, with this new Clause. I at once agree that he is sympathetic to the purpose of assisting these disabled persons, but he does not think that this is the right way to do it. In my remarks I think I can answer some of the points which he put to the Committee.
In order to assist the Treasury Bench I want to explain the background of the manner against which this Clause is drafted, so that it may be understood. In subsection (3) it will be noticed that various definitions are inserted. The definition of the expression "disabled person" comes from Section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944. I think that answers one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Tottenham when he asked who was to decide who was a disabled person. It is defined, and the definition is drawn from that Statute of 1944. The definition of the expression "earned income" comes from Section 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1918. Finally, the definition of the expression "public office or employment" comes from Schedule E, rule 6, of the Income Tax Act, 1918.
As the Committee will be well aware, the general rule is that no deduction is normally allowed for the cost of travelling between a man's home and his place of work. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale indicated that if I were fortunate enough to be able to address the Committee, I should mention that there is an example of a relaxation in regard to that rule which was introduced during the last war.
7.45 p.m.
By Section 26 of the Finance Act, 1942, it was provided that in the case of certain employed persons, if it is shown that their place of work, or their home, has been

changed through circumstances connected with the war, and that the cost of travel has thereby been increased, an allowance should be made of up to £10 a year. That is still the position. That was a special case arising out of war conditions so, to that extent, we have one example of a relaxation of the general rule.
The issue which presents itself to the Committee is whether the circumstances which the new Clause contemplates warrant a further exception to the general rule in favour of disabled persons many of whom are disabled as a result of the war. I am most anxious to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the very strict limits within which this relief would be available. It is designed, in other words, to help the most deserving cases.
It will be noticed that four definite conditions must be fulfilled before the relief becomes available. The first is that the person must be assessed in respect of earned income; the next is that the person must be a disabled person; the third is that by reason of his disability he is obliged to incur additional expenses in travelling to and from his work; and the last is that this additional expense must come out of his earned income.
If a man has an additional expense by reason of his disability, then some relief by way of allowance should be granted. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) has lent great weight to the argument which has been advanced. I believe that every Member of this Committee will rejoice that many disabled persons now have cars or special chairs which enable them to be much happier and more useful citizens. In many cases, Parliament has seen to it that that has been brought about.
I feel that the efforts of Parliament in this direction will be wasted if those who have these vehicles cannot afford to run and to maintain them. This proposal has been devised as a means of helping in these cases. I would with every earnestness commend it to the Committee as being a measure of relief which is right and just.

Mr. Gaitskell: I think that every hon. Member of this Committee has sympathy with the objects of this Clause. I entirely agree with everything said by the hon.


Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), and others about the desirability of disabled persons working. We can all take some pleasure in the fact that a good deal more is now done to secure that object as a result of the Act for which Mr. Bevin will always be remembered.
There would be, I am bound to tell the Committee, very great difficulties in accepting this Clause. I think that one can say there are three points of principle which are involved here, and I should like to take them one by one. First of all, there is the question whether or not there should be a special allowance to disabled persons on account of the additional expenses which, by reason of their disability, they have to incur. Second, there is the question whether or not there should be an allowance for travelling expenses between the residence and the place of work. Third, there is the question, to which I think the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir Ian Fraser) referred, of deductions from their total income of the cost of carrying out unpaid work.
To deal with the first question first—that is, the question of a special allowance for disabled persons—the difficulty is that this involves giving a special allowance because of the circumstances in which the individual taxpayer finds himself, and that, as it happens—I think the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) will remember—is a principle to which the Royal Commission of 1920 paid very special attention.
Some years ago, in 1944, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was dealing with a Clause rather similar to this in respect of blind persons, and I make no apology for quoting, as he did then, what the Royal Commission of 1920 had to say on the subject. In paragraph 237, they said:
We have been asked to recommend allowances for expenses arising out of illness or disability such as the travelling expenses of attendants of disabled persons; or to give compassionate rebate to persons who are compelled to maintain and pay personal attendants; or special relief to disabled persons in view of their decreased earning capacity. These claims, while differing in degree, all arise out of the personal or domestic circumstances of the taxpayer, and although we are conscious that in particular cases the operation

of the general rule may result in individual hardship, we feel that we cannot advise any general relaxation of the principles on which the tax is levied.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, once you have strayed from this rule which the Royal Commission laid down, and to which all Chancellors have adhered ever since, he did not think it would be possible to avoid going down the slippery slope of concession after concession; the fact that there were hard cases did not necessarily mean that it was wise to alter the law.
I think he put it very well. Sometimes, we are accused of being very frightened of opening the door, but I think we have to be frightened at opening the door. In fact, some of the debates which we have had already show the great difficulty of making concessions without fully appreciating all that they imply, and this is a case in point.
There is the further point that, although the definition of "Disabled persons" is taken from the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, that does not meet the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), because what he was saying was that it would be impossible for the Inland Revenue to administer taxation on the basis of this definition. It would be very difficult, for example, for them to decide what was meant by "substantially handicapped." It would be left to them to make an individual decision in every case, and I do not think that one could possibly impose that upon them. After all, the ordinary Income Tax allowances are easy enough to determine—the number of children a man has, whether he has a wife or not, or a dependent relative and so on. Here, we would be imposing on them something quite different.
The second point of principle which is raised is the question of allowing Income Tax relief for travelling expenses; again, there is only one case where there was an exception, and that was a war-time one. Here again, the Royal Commission of 1920 went as far as to say:
We are of the opinion that a general allowance for travellng expenses would result in very grave inequity.
I think I should point out that some people live near their work and pay very much more in rent in order to do so, while other people live further away and


pay less in rent but more for transport. I do not think that, even within the disabled category, we should find that there would be unanimity on a point of this kind, and it is quite contrary to the views, which I feel bound to uphold, of the Royal Commission and of all subsequent Chancellors.
Finally, there is the question of making an Income Tax allowance for the cost of carrying out unpaid duties. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale asked me a Question on this subject not long ago—in fact, he asked me more than one—and I tried to point out to him that what he was asking us to do was to grant an allowance where no income was earned. I am afraid we cannot accept that. The allowances which are granted by the Income Tax authorities in the ordinary way must be in respect of earned income. They are expenses incurred in the earning of the money, and if no money is earned no allowance can be granted.
The remedy here is a very simple one. It is that the voluntary bodies for which this extra work is done can themselves pay the expenses, and they do in many cases. I should have thought that, in the case of disabled persons, they would obviously have the strongest incentive to do so. I hope the Committee will not misunderstand me or think that I am unsympathetic to the general view. I am very sympathetic, but this Clause is not the right way to deal with it. It would get us into very great difficulties in administering the law, and for that reason I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the Clause.

Captain Crookshank: I am sure that we all sympathise very much with the Chancellor in having to give the Committee this advice and not being able to hold out any hope at all that he will look at this again. I think all of us who were here when the debate on this Clause started must have been profoundly moved by the fact that the first and second speakers to the Clause are two hon. Members who fight against the most terrible disabilities, and that they have put the case, not on their own behalf of course, but on behalf of others who have suffered too.
The right hon. Gentleman has based himself largely, if not almost entirely, on the Report of the Royal Commission of 1920. I remember, as the right hon. Gentleman

now finds out himself from personal experience, how that is bound to be the general answer which Chancellors are apt to give to anything which might smack of opening doors. I see that he has to put that case, but I think that on this issue, and possibly on some others, we have to remember that a quarter of a century has passed since that Royal Commission, and that, in this particular matter we are discussing today, there have been great changes.
The disabled of 1920 were not so numerous as they are now, owing to the second war from which we have all suffered. It is very true that, as a result of modern developments and not least the effects of the Act of 1944, it is fortunately the case that many more disabled persons are at work today, but the problem which presents itself now is very much larger than was the problem at the time when the Royal Commission of 1920 were considering it.
I realise that the right hon. Gentleman cannot do anything now, after the speech he has made, but I should like to ask him whether, on this and some similar points which were reported on in 1920, we do not require a re-assessment of this need in the changed circumstances of the time.

Mr. Houghton: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? I expected him to mention that there is now another Royal Commission on Income Tax which has already begun its work. May I suggest that this and some other matters might well be re-examined by that Royal Commission?

Captain Crookshank: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not use that argument, but, of course, since the hon. Member is no longer one of his advisers, it may have slipped out of the brief. I think that the Royal Commission might look into this in the light of the changes to which I have referred. That would be doing a useful piece of public work, I quite agree, and I suppose that in the meantime that is where the matter is going to be left.
It is quite true, and we all recognise it, that in the general case the particular personal and domestic circumstances of the taxpayer are very hard to bring within the ambit of the Income Tax law. The only point that ever turns up is


whether the force of the argument in specific cases is so great as to be sufficient to overthrow the general rule. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) reminded the Committee, the rule has been broken in one specific instance, and I am happy to remember that it was in the Act of 1942 when I was concerned in these matters from the Treasury aspect. That was, of course, an exceptional wartime case.
8.0 p.m.
It may be that one should argue that this is an exceptional post-war case, but the hon. Gentlemen who moved and supported the new Clause made it quite clear that they would not wish this limited to war casualties. There, again, with the development and the possibilities of employment, coupled with the increasing use of the motor vehicle or chair for the purpose, that is a new development. Twenty-five years ago, these vehicles were not used to anything like the same extent as they are even at the high cost today, and if we were not hampered by the petrol tax and all the other difficulties on the motoring side, I have no doubt they would be used still more, and to the advantage of the disabled person.
I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor, though he clearly does not intend or find it possible to do it today, will cause instructions to be given to look at these matters again. I would not necessarily say that we should wait until the report of the Royal Commission now sitting became available, because unless they are going to do some interim reporting, all previous experience indicates that that would not be for a very long time. I hope that the matter will be looked at between now and then.
I trust that the Chancellor will not be carried away with what was, I think, the slightly fallacious argument of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who took the line that because there were other disabled people suffering other disabilities who could not come within the ambit of this scheme because of transport it should not operate, and I hope that that line will not be given too much weight. Because we cannot do good for everybody as we go through life, that is no

argument why we should not sometimes be kind to some people if we can. That is the real case of that particular argument.
I am sure that all of us, wherever we sit in this Committee, have every sympathy with the cases put up. I would again reiterate that if it cannot be done, if the difficulties are such that the Chancellor does not see his way to do it, let him at least see that the matter is fully considered in the light of the speeches that have been made from all sides this evening before we get another Finance Bill, even though he may not be the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce it.

Sir I. Fraser: I wish to thank the Chancellor for the courteous and full manner in which he answered this plea, but, of course, I must express disappointment that he has found it impossible to hold out any hope that the matter will even be considered. I shall not go over the argument of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). He pointed out that in 1942 the universal rule about travelling from your place of living to your place of work, and so on, was broken.
That involved inquiry into every case to ascertain what was the difference between the cost of going to work from one's new home over and above what it would have been had one not had to move. There is ample information and expert judgment available to enable the Inland Revenue authorities to assess these costs. As to their not taking an interest in anyone's private affairs, I may well ask why they should only take an interest when it is going to pay them, instead of taking this little bit of interest when it is not.
One final observation. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said he could not find a few millions in order to deal with the widespread complaints made to him on many occasions about war pensions. His particular reason was, in one sentence, that most of these men were at work. But they are only at work with great difficulty, and my plea was to try and aid them in that difficulty to stay at work, and to be independent as far as possible of pleas to this House. This is a new idea which has not been voiced before in these terms. I am not surprised


that with the onerous anxieties which the Chancellor has, he and his advisers have not had the full time to weigh a relatively small matter of this sort. I hope that no harm has been done to this cause by raising it this year and that, perhaps, next year we may have better luck. In that hope, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(EXTENSION OF TIME IN RELATION TO RELIEF FROM EXCESS PROFITS TAX FOR TERMINAL EXPENSES.)

Section seventy-eight of the Finance Act, 1948 (which extends the time in relation to relief from excess profits tax for terminal expenses), shall have effect as if for the words "the end of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two," there were substituted the words" the end of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-four."—[Sir J. Mellor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury was good enough to intimate earlier today that it was the intention of the Government to advise the Committee to agree to this new Clause. I wish to express my thanks to the Chancellor for the very careful and helpful attention which he has given to this quite important matter. In the circumstances, I will be as brief as is consistent with courtesy to the Committee, but I must explain shortly what the new Clause would do.
The Clause extends to the end of March, 1954, the period in which terminal expenses qualify for relief from Excess Profits Tax. Terminal expenses are defined in Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1946, and include:
Costs of deferred repairs and renewals…being repairs and renewals which have been deferred by reason of conditions prevailing as a consequence of the war.
Terminal expenses also include costs of rehabilitation—for example, the removal of air-raid shelters and the bringing back to their normal places of business enterprises which had to be moved away during the war.
I will give one further example. Where physical assets had to be adapted for war purposes, then the cost of readaptation would qualify. The Committee will

appreciate that the difficulty of obtaining building licences has very largely retarded restoration to normal, and in those circumstances I think the proposal for an extension of time is both reasonable and necessary.

Mr. J. Edwards: I need only say two things. First I would express to the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) our appreciation for bringing this matter forward, and for the very clear exposition he has given of the purpose of the Clause. Second, we do think this is eminently reasonable and trust, therefore, that the Committee will agree to it.

Sir Peter Bennett: In view of that statement made from the Treasury Bench I should like to refer to the new Clause—[Relief from excess profits tax for terminal expenses]—I have down and which is of a similar nature and deals with a similar matter. I am aware that we cannot do two jobs at once, and cannot pass two new Clauses at once, but if I state the reasons for that new Clause, which deals with the same matter—

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry, but it is quite out of order to deal with a new Clause that has not yet been called. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make comments on this new Clause I shall be glad to listen to him.

Sir P. Bennett: I am only making comments upon this new Clause. We have had this matter before us previously. On previous occasions—on two occasions, at least, as far as I remember—when we put forward the view that the time had come to settle this question of deferred repairs Sir Stafford Cripps said, "Let us go on a little further and see how we get on." We have gone on for further periods, and we still have this problem of deferred repairs in front of us. What we hoped was that the time had come when it would be possible for us to close this matter completely.
The reason why we cannot at the moment complete those deferred repairs is well known—the labour is not available. The result is that year by year there are repairs which are deferred. There are repairs which have been deferred from the period of E.P.T. We should like the Chancellor to look into this question of whether it would be possible to come to some arrangement by


which they could be assessed and the job could be finished off. There are reorganisations which have been pending a long time, and which are being held up until this question is settled.
As the years go by the question arises ever more urgently whether it is in the public interest that certain assets should be repaired or whether it would be better, perhaps, to spend the money on completely new assets, in view of the developments which are taking place. A large number of these cases are in the files of the Inland Revenue as, "Not settled." We feel that the time has come when it would be to the advantage of the Revenue authorities, just as much as to that of our accountants, to come to a settlement, so that the matter need not be brought forward periodically, with the periodic request that the relief should be extended. I hope that the Chancellor will take note of this and look into it.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: What the Economic Secretary has already told us was, in fact, the second string to our bow. We of course must appreciate the fact that he has recognised the very just claims put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). However, I do think that E.P.T., finished with many years ago, is something of an anachronism.
I think it is time that the whole thing should be cleared up, that the slate should be wiped clean; and I agree with my hon. Friend that not only the Treasury but those who still have claims outstanding would be benefited if this delaying to which the hon. Gentleman has just given his assent were not carried on any further, for it leaves an unsettled situation in the Treasury and in industry. As my hon. Friend has suggested, I also suggest that he should look into the possibility of estimating the cost of repairs, of wiping the slate clean, and of trying to get this little bit of trouble out of the way for good and all.
I should like finally to ask whether it would not bring some funds into the Treasury—

The Chairman: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not addressing himself to the new Clause before the Committee, but that he is speaking to some other new Clause to which, if I

remember aright, his own name is attached. I must ask him to confine himself to the new Clause before the Committee—a new Clause which, I gather, has been accepted by the Government.

8.15 p.m.

Colonel Hutchison: I simply say that we thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has done, and ask him to bear that in mind later when we come to our other Clause. In referring to it now we are really saving the time of the Committee, because it will not need any further discussion.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(TAX RELIEFS FOR OWNER-OCCUPIERS OF HOUSES OF HISTORICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE.)

The following tax reliefs shall be given to the owner-occupiers of houses listed under the Town and Country Planning Acts or scheduled as national monuments or designated by the National Trusts, the Georgian Society or otherwise as buildings of historical or architectural importance provided that such houses are open to the public on reasonable conditions:

(a) relief from income tax and surtax in respect of such expenditure on repairs and maintenance of the designated house and contents as may be approved by the Treasury or by any body appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose and entrusted with the duty of furthering the preservation of houses of outstanding historical or architectural interest;
(b) suspension of the payment of that part of any death duties due in respect of the house, listed contents and amenity land so long as they are not sold;
(c) exemption from entertainments duty on the admission fees charged for visits to such houses;
(d) suspension of death duties on any property assigned to trustees for the sole purpose of maintaining a designated house out of the income of that property.—[Mr. Colegate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause arises out of the Report made by the Gowers Committee on Houses of Outstanding Historical or Architectural Interest, appointed by Sir Stafford Cripps. To those who are interested in matters artistic and architectural, this Clause deals with one of the most serious questions facing us today. I do not wish to detain the Committee


longer than I can help, but I must just put this in some sort of perspective and refer to how the matter has arisen and how it stands today.
I, like many others, was profoundly moved by what I had seen happening all over the country with regard to the vast heritage of historical and architectural treasures that really belong to us all, and during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill in 1950, I put down two or three Amendments dealing with the question. The Gowers Committee had not then reported.
Between the Committee and Report stages of the Finance Bill in 1950, the Report of the Gowers Committee was published, and on the Report stage I put down a new Clause dealing with the matter in a rather different way from that in the Amendments I had put down in Committee, and rather, but not quite, on the lines of this new Clause, which, as those who are interested in the subject will know, is, with the exception of the preliminary words, practically taken direct from the Gowers Report.
I was pleased to find that Sir Stafford Cripps was extremely sympathetic. He naturally said—and, of course, one quite understood—that the Gowers Report had only just been received, and that the Government must have time to examine its recommendations before they could put forward to the House their recommendations on how the policy recommended by the Gowers Committee should be followed or modified.
Perhaps it should not be out of place if I quoted one or two of Sir Stafford's words. He thanked me for raising the subject and said:
I think it would be a very bad thing if we were to hurry forward with a partial solution of this matter…This is a matter in which, as the House will appreciate, everybody does not necessarily take the same view, yet it is very important that if we are to do something it should be something which is generally accepted as being the wise and proper way of dealing with the matter.
He then gave me this assurance:
I am very anxious to go ahead and to complete dealing with what is undoubtedly a great and, I think, an urgent problem.
He could hardly say less in view of the grave language used by the Gowers Report, to which I shall refer in a moment. Sir Stafford went on to say:
It is because I wanted everybody to have an opportunity of examining the problem that

we appointed the Gowers Committee, and I want now to allow time for the Report to be studied and discussed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 285–6.]
He then undertook to bring forward legislation "next year"—that is this year—and, in view of that statement, I withdrew my proposed new Clause.
But that was not the end of the matter. I was delighted to find in private conversation that Sir Stafford had got this matter very much at heart. I disagreed with him on many subjects, but I was delighted to find that he was really interested. Later on, he asked me first of all to go to see the present Attorney-General, then the Solicitor-General, and we had an hour's talk together. I came away again extremely pleased at the very sympathetic reception I had had, and it looked as though there was a very good chance of the Gowers Committee's recommendations being carried out.
Later I met Sir Stafford again in one of the most historic houses in London when he sought me out and told me that he had this matter very much at heart, and I need not worry too much about it because he thought that a satisfactory solution would be found. Naturally, I was very pleased. He asked me one further thing. He said, "You are connected with rural district councils and other things; will you do as much propaganda as you can in favour of the recommendations of the Gowers Report?" That, to the best of my ability, I have done.
I am not an extremely prominent person who can go to the B.B.C. to express my views but, in my own way, I have done my best, and it is very natural that I believed, in view of Sir Stafford's assurances, there would be legislation which would give effect to the proposal. In the meantime, there was a reference in the House of Lords to this matter, but it did not carry it any further, because I think that the noble Lord dealing with it explained that it was a matter which must be dealt with mainly through the Finance Bill, and he could not, any more than could the Chancellor himself, anticipate the Budget.
What was my astonishment to find tucked away in a written answer in reply to a Question, which appears to have been clearly arranged, a statement by the present Chancellor which hitherto there


has been no opportunity of questioning and no opportunity to debate, and which, in its material particulars, goes entirely against the recommendations of the Gowers Report.
This is not a party matter. Those of us who are interested have never treated it as such, and to do full justice to Sir Stafford he dealt with it on artistic and aesthetic grounds. In this written answer, which, I gather, most Members have failed to notice, we find the present Chancellor agreeing that these historic buildings and their grounds to which I am referring
are important national assets of substantial aesthetic, historic and educational value…
He goes on to say
The chief measure proposed by the Committee to deal with the situation was a series of exemptions from taxation…
which are set out in the new Clause to which I am now inviting the Committee to agree. He then goes on to say:
The Government are unable to accept this proposal…
and gives a number of reasons why they cannot, adding:
This does not imply any opposition to the private occupation of these houses, on which the Committee set store;…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 86–7.]
The Committee will realise that, except for losing these houses altogether, the next most fatal thing that we can do is to turn them into a series of dead and dreary museums. This idea is seized upon with great imagination, which one might not expect from a Royal Commission, which points out that if people are to see these houses and visitors from abroad are to enjoy visiting them, they must be owner-occupied. They must see them as they exist today and as they existed in the past and not stripped of all that gives life to them and left as a series of dead relics on the sea of time.
I pass to another subject which I can only mention in passing. I shall not attempt to develop it because it would be out of order. The Gowers Committee Report recommended that an Historic Buildings Council should be created with executive powers. I must not deal with that, because it would involve legislation, but that important recommendation has been completely rejected by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, as indeed

have other recommendations. The work of that Committee—one of the most brilliant Reports that has been produced in recent times, to which seven people of great talent and ability gave a great deal of time and in connection with which they travelled widely in this country—has been swept aside in a written answer. We have not had the opportunity of discussing it or even of asking a question.
I venture to think that that is not the way to deal with a Report of the importance of this one. Surely, when we appoint people as members of a committee and ask them to give us the best advice in these matters, we should at least have a full-dress debate before we modify or reject their conclusions. Far be it for me to say that, because a Royal Commission recommends a proposal it should be adopted, and that it should not remain with the House finally to determine what measures should be taken. Of course, a Royal Commission can only be an advisory body. It must be the duty of the Government to act on the Report, but this one throws a very serious burden upon the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Let me remind the Committee of one or two reasons why the Gowers Report lays such emphasis on taxation. First of all, I must pay a tribute to Sir Stafford Cripps. He appointed the Committee with terms of reference which included the following:
…where desirable, the preservation of a house and its contents as a unity.
In effect, that means a living thing. The Report stated that a house and its contents in the hands of the owner was far better for the public and they added that what they called the "amenity land" should be available and accessible to the public. As is known, these grounds are where in the ordinary village country district the British Legion fete, the Red Cross fete, and so on are held, the place being often referred to as "the big house." The Report says:
Now, owing to economic and social changes, we are faced with a disaster comparable only to that which the country suffered by the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the 16th century.
It is no use the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), shaking his head. I am entitled to quote from this Report, and the hon. Member might think that these experts, who gave so much time to


it, might perhaps know a little more than he does about the subject. There is nothing controversial in what I am saying. This is a quotation from the Gowers Report, the Committee responsible for which was appointed by Sir Stafford Cripps, and it says that:
 … we are faced with a disaster comparable only to that which the country suffered by the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the 16th century.
The Report is referring not to spiritual changes, but to the great bulk of architecture which was despoiled and ruined in those times, as anyone knows who has read the history of the time. Those monasteries were sold to speculators, and the Committee repeat that what is happening now is only comparable to that event.
8.30 p.m.
What does the Report say? It says in paragraph 130:
The essence of the trouble is that the owner is not left with enough money, after paying Income Tax and Surtax, to maintain his house. No foreseeable general reduction of taxation is likely to provide a solution.
Then the Report goes on to show that in addition there are Death Duties which almost always, in a generation or two, lead to the breaking up of the house and the estate. I am not dealing with the estate but only with the house and its amenities. Already many beautiful houses, some of which are illustrated in the Report, have been sold to speculators, and some have been transported stone by stone to the United States of America.
Consequently, I put forward in my proposed new Clause the tax reliefs recommended by the Gowers Report. They were: that owner-occupiers of designated houses should be entitled to certain reliefs from Income Tax and Surtax in respect only of approved expenditure; relief from Death Duties on houses, listed contents and amenity land, so long as they are not sold, and in both cases subject to the condition that they are reasonably accessible to the public. Then, further; relief from Death Duties on property assigned to trustees to maintain the house, and the amenity land. The other recommendation which I have put into the proposed new Clause is that Entertainments Duty should not be levied on the admission charges to designated houses.
Those are reasonable proposals. They involve the Treasury in very little money. They could maintain the whole of these houses with the tax reliefs recommended by the Gowers Report for perhaps less than half the money that was spent on the South Bank Festival, for a trifling sum, far less than has been spent on many a foolish experiment in Africa. We should not get some temporary exhibition for the money but houses which people will come from all parts of the world to see, and which are widely used by the ordinary populace; I have seen charabanc after charabanc rolling up to enjoy Chatsworth and its beautiful park which is freely open to the public.

The Chairman: I rather understood that the hon. Gentleman would be short in his speech, but the speech has gone a little wide already. To go to Africa is certainly going wide.

Mr. Colegate: You must remember. Major Milner—of course, I bow to your Ruling—that I had to justify the proposed expenditure. If I am told, as I have been in effect in this written reply, that the Treasury cannot afford this money, despite the fact that it is a trifling sum, I think I am entitled to point out that the Treasury can find much larger sums for what strikes me as much less worthy purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The new Clause which I am proposing is not just some personal opinion of mine. It is an opinion of men and women who worked on this Royal Commission, have seen the houses, and have inquired into the circumstances. They can only find this way of preserving this fine heritage of beauty and architecture, which has no parallel in any part of the world today.
I urge the Chancellor to reconsider this matter. It is not too late. He has put forward a proposal of his own, but he has not given us an estimate of the cost. I take it on a rough guess that he is going to save very little money indeed and it will turn these houses into dead things. Under the proposed new Clause they would be living realities. I urge the Chancellor to look into the matter again.
Owing to the rules of order, in my new Clause I could not refer to houses designated by the Historic Buildings Council, which was the intention of the Royal Commission, and so I had to suggest the


National Trust, the Georgian Society and other bodies who might designate such houses. That is not an essential part of the new Clause. The essential part is that the houses which are to have this privilege, if privilege it be—many owners do not feel that it is anything more than a mere help towards the maintenance—must be designated in some way or other. I leave that entirely to the Treasury and to the regulations which they will make if they are to create a Historic Buildings Council. The Office of Works and various other departments are quite capable of judging whether or not a house comes within the ambit of the Gowers Report.
I hope the Chancellor will consider the matter very seriously. Today the Philistine is rampant in many fields, and if there is one field in which at comparatively little cost the British Government can save so vast a heritage of beauty, surely nothing should stand in the way of their taking the necessary steps and introducing the necessary legislation. I beg the Government to accept the Clause as a first step.

Mr. H. Hynd: I wish to say, lest silence on this side of the Committee be misinterpreted, that I hope that the Chancellor will not accept the Clause. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) has made a very eloquent case for the recommendations of the Gowers Report, and in certain circumstances those recommendations might be acceptable to the Committee, but we are continually being told by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends about the burden which is being imposed on our people by rising prices and other circumstances. What would be the reaction of our constituents if we went to them now and said that although the position in regard to the cost of living was difficult we had a proposal to subsidise the owner-occupiers of these houses?
The word "subsidy." has not been used before. The position has been put the other way round as a relief from taxation, but it is in effect a subsidy. This is entirely the wrong time to bring such a proposal before the country. I know what my constituents would tell me if I went to them at the weekend and told them that I had supported such a proposal. The least they would say would be that it was ill-timed.
I find it difficult to believe that the owners of these houses are in such difficult circumstances as have been described. They may not all be shareholders in the firms which are making increasingly huge profits, but neither can they be described as the worst off section of the population. Mainly for that reason, I hope that such a subsidy as this will not be considered seriously by the Committee at this time.

Mr. Hollis: It is only necessary for me to support this new Clause in a few words because my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) moved it with such cogency. Whatever difference of opinion there may be in other parts of the Committee or throughout the country about the essential need to preserve these historic houses as national monuments, we need not waste much time in arguing the point because there is no difference of opinion on the Treasury Bench.
My hon. Friend has shown that there is no one who has spoken with more warmth on this subject than Sir Stafford Cripps. And I remember a speech made by the Prime Minister on some public occasion outside this House in which he referred in equally moving terms to the importance of the preservation of this national heritage. So the Government, at any rate, are committed on the desirability of doing something about it.
Nor do I think that the argument of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), that we should do nothing about it because of the effect on his constitutents, is particularly edifying. Democracy will not survive very long in this country if hon. Members give their votes solely on such a consideration. The hon. Member also said that the people who live in these houses are not the most badly off people in the community. Nobody has suggested that they are. What we are discussing at the moment is not the matter of their personal fortunes or whether these people shall have to apply to public assistance, but whether they will be in a position to go on living in these houses which, it is argued, is desirable, not so much for their private pleasure as that they are rendering a public service by doing so.
It is on that basis we must argue, and are arguing, this Clause. I do not intend to delay the Committee, but I want to


lay down two propositions which are clearly pertinent. The first is that a thing of beauty should, if possible, be used for the purpose for which it is created. That has nothing to do with politics. It is a principle of art and a very sound and important principle. It is possible to use a cathedral as a garage, it is possible to use Carlton House Terrace as a set of offices, it is possible to turn an ancient mansion into a lunatic asylum—all these things are possible, and sometimes it is inevitable to do those things, for we cannot always do the best thing. But it is undesirable. If a thing is created for one purpose it is desirable that it should be used for that purpose if possible. That is a proposition of artistic criticism; it is my opinion for what that may be worth. More important, it is emphatically the opinion of the Gowers Committee which was set up by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I would remind the Committee of the history of this problem. It so happened that the report of the Gowers Committee more or less coincided with the Finance Bill last year. Therefore Sir Stafford Cripps very reasonably said that he could not give a sudden answer as to what precisely he would do about this problem, but he considered it an obligation of honour to do something about it, an obligation which we have no doubt he would have honoured if unfortunate circumstances had not taken him out of public life.
So I do not think the Chancellor can deny that he, too, has inherited an obligation of honour to find a solution for this problem. There are these buildings of historic importance. Some are not in private hands, and therefore there is no problem of Death Duties. Others are in private hands and have to face the problem of Death Duties. On purely artistic and historical grounds it is desirable that these houses should remain in private hands. They can remain in private hands only if either this Clause is accepted or something of a similar nature is put forward by the Government.
The second principle I would lay down, which answers the point of the hon. Member for Accrington about these houses being private possessions, is that an Englishman's house is his castle except when he happens to live in a castle. That

is to say, if one lives in a house of unique importance one has no moral right to treat that as a private property in the ordinary sense that we can treat our own small houses. The owner has an obligation to the community at large to use that property in such a way that the community can share in the enjoyment of it.
8.45 p.m.
Whether or not under the different circumstances of the past the owners of such properties always fulfilled that duty is neither pertinent nor in order to discuss, but it is quite obvious that that is a duty that is laid upon such people today and it is a duty which is entirely provided for in the Clause, by which they would get these advantages not merely from the fact of occupying these houses but only
provided that such houses are open to the public on reasonable conditions.
Therefore, it seems to me that the new Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend is based, as he said, on the highly expert artistic advice of the Gowers Committee. It is ridiculous for an hon. Member opposite to speak about bias as if the Gowers Committee were a gang of politicians; to talk in that way introduces an argument which is below the level of ridiculous. I quite agree that the Chancellor has no moral obligation to accept the precise wording of the Clause or the precise recommendation of the Gowers Committee. If he is able to accept the Clause, we shall be delighted. But if he is not, if he would take the opportunity of showing in what other detailed way he is going to solve this problem, that would be entirely satisfactory to us.
Like my hon. Friend, I was profoundly disturbed and puzzled by the written answer which the Chancellor gave on 26th April. As we know, Sir Stafford Cripps was thinking over the solution to this problem when he unfortunately had to leave public life. I then asked the new Chancellor a Question, which I think was reached as an oral Question, a short time afterwards as to whether he had yet made up his mind what policy he would pursue towards the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. He answered that he had not yet made up his mind, which was reasonable in view of his newness to his office, but it was profoundly disturbing to find this reply in the written answer on 26th April. We


have not had an opportunity of debating that answer, and I still cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman, whom I have had the privilege of knowing for a number of years, and we have fully understood one another, means that he is going to do absolutely nothing about this.
I hope that if the Chancellor is not able to accept the Clause in so many words, he will not content himself merely with negative criticism of this or that phrase in it, but will take the opportunity to give some indication of how the Government propose to solve this problem, to which I am sure he must agree that not only are the Government under a profound moral obligation to find a solution, but that it is to the artistic interests of the country that a solution should be found. Nobody has spoken more strongly than the Prime Minister and Sir Stafford Cripps of the necessity of preserving these buildings. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us tonight some indication of the Government's policy.

Mr. Gaitskell: I must confess to considerable surprise at the speeches of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate), who introduced the Clause, and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), who supported it. I readily agree at least with one thing which the hon. Member for Devizes said: that there certainly is some misunderstanding. Indeed, I find it difficult to believe that either of the hon. Members can have read the written answer to which they refer. I will return to that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Burton referred several times to Sir Stafford Cripps. I really must make plain, in view of what he has said and in view of the implications of his statement, that there was, or would be, a complete difference of opinion between Sir Stafford Cripps and myself on this matter. In fact, Sir Stafford, with whom I discussed this problem before, unfortunately, he had to resign, was not in favour of the taxation proposals of the Gowers Committee. He was much concerned with the problem, and so am I. We have proposed, as I thought the Committee would be aware, a different and, we think, much more satisfactory solution to the problem.
The statement in the written answer is, I think, perfectly clear, and I cannot

understand the apparent resentment that it was contained in a written answer, which is a usual thing to do. It has, in fact, been debated in another place, and it was referred to with some approval by the Leader of the Opposition, I think at the Royal Academy Banquet. I cannot understand the two hon. Members in their apparent ignorance and, indeed, opposition to our proposals.

Mr. Colegate: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that when a very important Royal Commission reports it is not usual for the Government of the day to tuck away their suggestions on the matter in a written answer to a Private Member's Question. I should naturally have supposed, and I think most people would, that the House would have been found some opportunity to debate the attitude of the Government, but there was no opportunity of debating the Question.

Mr. Gaitskell: Whether or not there is a debate in the House is not my responsibility; as to asking Questions, it is open to hon. Members to ask Questions any week. I must reserve the right of any Minister to decide the exact form in which he announces the views of the Government on a matter. This was a rather lengthy statement, and there was a large number of oral statements at that time. It was given in a written answer and certainly got a certain amount of publicity in the Press, and in the main favourable publicity.
What is the proposal we are considering? It is a proposal under certain conditions to exempt owner-occupiers of specific houses. I will deal right away with one of these tax exemptions, the exemption from Entertainments Duty. It happens that the Gowers Committee were mistaken in supposing that Entertainments Duty is levied on the visiting of historic houses and amenity grounds so long, that is, as there are no fun-fairs or objects of that kind in the grounds. Therefore, it is not necessary to have any exemption. As to the rest, it is proposed that, once a list of houses has been drawn up, there should be automatic exemption on a wide scale for those who happen to be occupying the houses.
Of course, the Gowers Committee was concerned to do this not because they had any particular regard for those who were


occupying these houses, but in order that the houses might be preserved. We all understand that and know it. The fact remains that their proposals would have involved automatic tax exemption without regard to the needs of the persons occupying those houses. They would have created, whether we like it or not, a privileged class of person. I think that would have been a completely unique feature of the British tax system, and I am bound to say I do not think it would have met with very much support from the majority of the citizens of this country. At the best, one could say it was liable to grave misunderstanding, and incidentally, all these tax exemptions would have been granted automatically without any Parliamentary control whatever.
Nor, indeed, under the Gowers Committee proposals, or the proposals of this proposed new Clause, would there be any opportunity for the Government, the House or anyone to say who should, or should not, enjoy the benefit. It would be a list drawn up by the Historic Buildings Council, according to the Gowers Committee Report, or some other body according to this new Clause, and that is contrary to our constitutional practice.

Mr. Colegate: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. We already have arrangements for suspension of Death Duties in quite a number of cases, particularly on works of art.

Mr. Gaitskell: That is a rather different point, and I was coming to it in relation to the particular proposals to which we have already given general blessing in Clause 29. Those proposals arose out of the Gowers Committee Report, and I think the Committee approved them and realise that we have not ignored that aspect.
If I may return to the main point, the question was how we were to achieve the object which, as the hon. Member for Devizes said, is not in dispute. I hold the view that by drawing up a list and saying that any one who owns and lives in any of these houses could have exemption, would not be the right way of achieving what we want to achieve. It would have meant an automatic benefit, very substantial benefit, to those living in those houses which they could have capitalised, because although it is true that the proposal to suspend Death

Duties applies under the provisions of this Clause if the house is not sold, that does not apply to the relief from Income Tax and Surtax, and that would have been a very substantial advantage.

Mr. Colegate: It would be a mere matter of regulations by the Treasury.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is not a mere matter of regulation. We are discussing the Clause as it stands and the proposals of the Gowers Committee. There is no doubt that the tax exemptions they propose would have made it possible for those who happened be living in those houses to sell them at considerable profit. I am not saying whether that might be a good or bad thing, but it is certainly liable to great misunderstanding. [Interruption.] The argument I have advanced is perfectly clear, and I think it is unassailable.
The proposals that have been made cannot be discussed, and I am at some disadvantage in trying to explain to the Committee exactly what we have in mind. I would, however, say that I think it is far better that we should deal with this problem in a way which gives us greater flexibility and at the same time a greater degree of control over the expenditure that is involved. It is surely far better that we should—I hope I am not getting out of order but it is difficult to deal with the subject except by mentioning it—approach the matter in the way we propose.
We propose that the Minister of Works, who already has in his Department considerable responsibility, should have power to make grants and loans, and even do the repair work himself, in these houses in appropriate cases. There is no suggestion that before he steps in the house has to be empty and that it has to become a museum. We have not said that. This is not the occasion on which to discuss the full details of the matter. We shall be having legislation in the autumn and there will be every opportunity of looking at the question then, but I must correct the impression which the two hon. Members seem to have, that we have decided to do nothing about this and that we are content to let these houses go to rack and ruin without lifting a finger.
That is not so. We accept that further responsibility which must be placed upon the State in order to deal with this matter. We think that it should be done by a Minister of the Crown, and we propose to give him powers to do it. The amount it will cost is a matter which we must regulate according to the financial situation. There again, that is a far better way of dealing with the matter than by tax exemption which might cost say £3 million or £4 million a year, or whatever the sum would be, according to the number of houses involved.
I must be forgiven if I say as Chancellor that I prefer this way—that I should have the right to say to my right hon. Friend, "You can only be allowed a certain sum this year but when things are better we may be able to let you have a little more." That is why I suggest that our proposals are much better designed to meet the need, which is certainly recognised and acknowledged by us all. On these grounds, I suggest to the Committee that they should reject the new Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF RATE OF EXCISE DUTY ON PRIVATE MOTOR CARS.)

(1) For the purpose of calculating the duty of excise chargeable under section six of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, in respect of a mechanically-propelled vehicle of a description specified in paragraph 2 of the Fifth Schedule to that Act, being a vehicle registered under the Roads Act, 1920, or that Act, the following paragraph shall be substituted for the said paragraph 2, that is to say—

"2. Other vehicles—

If registered under the Roads Act, 1920, or this Act



£
s.
d.


Not exceeding 7 horse power
7
10
0


Exceeding 7 horse power
10
0
0."

(2) This section shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-two.—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We appreciate the fact that you, Major Milner, have selected this new Clause for consideration. It is well known that it has been debated before and it will there-

fore not be necessary for us to debate it at length. We can put our arguments and our case quite shortly, knowing that the right hon. Gentleman is himself well seized of the arguments on both sides.
Briefly, the object of the new Clause is to effect justice by removing an anomaly. It is to make the £10 flat-rate motor car tax universal, except for cars which are rated at 7 horse-power or less, which will be flat-rated for tax purposes at £7 10s. That, very briefly, summarises a rather technical form of Clause.
I would remind the Committee that all hon. Members, and in particular motorists, welcomed the introduction of the flat-rate principle in the Budget of 1947. Since then we have been waiting for the justification of the claim of the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Local Government and Planning as a political tipster. The Committee will remember the words he used on that occasion, when he was dealing with this matter and answering an Amendment which had very much the same effect as the Clause I am now moving he said:
…it is a pretty safe bet that at some date in the not far distant future the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend will be adopted. I am making no promise—it would be wrong to do so—for next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 2276.]
Four years have passed and the safe bet of the right hon. Gentleman has not yet come home. I hope that the present Chancellor will tonight make sure that the political wisdom and foresight of his right hon. Friend will be justified.
The reasons I refer to that in particular are, first, to show the Committee that even upon the introduction of this provision the then Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised that he was creating an anomaly which sooner or later would have to be relieved. The second reason is to show that right from the inception there was no question at all of any party issue in this matter. Since then hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee have, on successive Finance Bills, moved a Clause in similar, if not identical, terms to the one I am now moving. All hon. Members have at times, perhaps one may say particularly at election times, promised their constituents they would do all they could to remove this anomaly. Therefore, I hope we shall receive support for this new Clause from all parts of the Committee.
The weight of this horse-power tax still left on the pre-1947 cars falls primarily on the poorer class of motorist. It is not the poor motorist who can afford to buy a new car. Generally speaking, he has to rely on the older car which still bears the horse-power tax, and those who are able to afford a more expensive new car can gain the benefit of the £10 flat-rate tax.
I want to deal particularly with the argument which has frequently been put forward that there is rough justice in this division between the horse-power tax and the Purchase Tax; that because owners of pre-1947 cars did not pay Purchase Tax they should, therefore, be mulcted of the horse-power tax. That argument is entirely fallacious. To begin with, Purchase Tax was paid on all cars of the vintages between 1941 and 1947. Therefore, owners of those cars have paid both Purchase Tax and the horse-power tax as well.
Secondly, so much time has now elapsed that in respect of the pre-war car about as much horse-power tax has been paid as would have been paid in Purchase Tax had it been a new car. To quote an example, a 20 h.p. car first licensed in 1939 will by now have contributed £325 to the Revenue in the horse-power tax which will have been paid, and it will go on paying tax at that high rate. Therefore, that argument is fallacious and it establishes that this anomalous system under which we are taxed at present does not even produce rough justice.
The other point with which I particularly want to deal concerns the argument which has always been used by each successive Chancellor of the Exchequer, that to remove this injustice would cost the taxpayer £6 million. Originally, in the first year, 1947, the figure given was £5,500,000 but, instead of depreciating, as I think the Chancellor of the day anticipated, it rose the next year to £6 million, and it has remained static ever since. I anticipate that the Chancellor will claim that to grant justice in this case would cost him £6 million in a full year.
The first comment I want to make against that is that in the financial returns for last year, the Budget receipts for motor taxation were £5,500,000 in excess of the Budget expectations. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman last year

knocked up practically the whole of that £6 million which he estimated it would cost him to grant justice. He has got the money with which to do it if he wants to do it. The other point is that I do not believe—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman's advisers will be able to satisfy him on this point—that he would lose anything at all. In fact, he might even make a profit by it, and I hope that that will appeal to his instinct.
I pointed out that this £6 million has remained static year by year. That is not because there are no cars which fall by the wayside or because there are no accidents. Cars, like old soldiers, fade away. It is not because none has faded away. It is because there is a large pool of unlicensed pre-1947 cars in this country, in garages and barns all over the place, which are not being put on the road because of this tax. In a fairly recent letter to "The Times," one authority has estimated that there are no fewer than 250,000 such cars available in a pool to be brought out if a flat-rate tax is imposed instead of the horse-power tax.
Be that as it may, if we assume that the flat-rate tax would bring back on to the roads only 100,000 cars—and that is a minimum estimate—their coming back would introduce into the Revenue, by the taxation from all sources which they would attract, a sum of £4 million. Therefore, two-thirds of the right hon. Gentleman's costs of granting justice would immediately return to him. In addition to that, there would be the cars that would maintain an annual licence instead of a quarterly one, and there would be a very substantial saving in administrative costs by a simplification of the system. Therefore, I maintain that this proposal would not cost the right hon. Gentleman anything, and would probably result in a profit to the taxpayer. In addition to that, it would very probably ease the secondhand car market, which would be an advantage to everybody.
To sum up, the anomaly has been admitted. The right hon. Gentleman said last year that it was a slight anomaly, and in using that expression I think he was rather less generous than usual. I think that he was also under-estimating the feeling in the country about this anomaly, because it is very largely felt indeed. It is agreed that justice should be done, but for four years the Government


have yielded justice to expediency. Now the right hon. Gentleman can give justice with profit, and we therefore sincerely hope that he will accept the new Clause.

Mr. Gammans: I need not spend much time supporting the arguments in favour of this new Clause, because they were all put over with such vigour and fluency by hon. Gentlemen opposite last year and the year before. What I think is so curious about the Committee stage of this Finance Bill is that not a single new Clause has been put down on the Order Paper on any conceivable subject by hon. Members opposite. Why are they not supporting this new Clause? The situation has not changed. Have they become more docile in the past year than they were before? Last year, they made the most eloquent speeches, though it is true that they did not back them up in the Lobbies; at any rate, they made the speeches, and I hope we shall have some from them tonight.
I imagine that the Chancellor's attitude is simply that he would very much like to grant this concession, and that he would like to do so if for no other reason than that there was an implied pledge to do it on the part of the Government three years ago. I imagine that the attitude the right hon. Gentleman will take is that he simply cannot afford it, and therefore I hope he will pay very special attention to this question of extra revenue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) referred a moment ago.
I want to put forward the argument on one ground only. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always proclaiming the fact that they believe in fair shares for all. Surely, that carries with it the corollary of fair burdens for all, and surely if there is one section of the community which is having more than its unfair share of burden it is the motorists today. If I might briefly mention the way in which the motorist has been treated in the past few years, I would say that, first of all, there was 9d. a gallon put on petrol, and then there is another 4½d. per gallon this year. Then, the Purchase Tax has been increased, and the motoring community has been asked to accept disproportionate cuts in the home market in order to keep the export market going.
No one objects to that, and the Chancellor and his hon. Friends have always paid tribute to the way in which our export trade depends upon motor cars, but there is no other industry which bears that share. Clothes, boots and shoes, bicycles—none have suffered the cuts applied to the motor industry, which have made it all the more difficult for people to get new cars and to enjoy the £10 tax. In addition, so far as burdens are concerned, nothing is being spent on new roads, and an inadequate sum on the old ones.
9.15 p.m.
My last point is that we still have no branded petrol; we are still putting up with a lower octane petrol than in most parts of the world. I suggest it is a matter of unequal burdens being placed on one section of the community, and it is on those grounds, above all, that I ask the Chancellor to make this concession. After all, the motorist pays his ordinary-taxation like the rest of us. He pays his Income Tax, and all the indirect forms of taxation, and I do suggest—

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's latter remarks have referred to motorists as a whole. This new Clause refers only to particular motorists who own cars of a particular age.

Mr. Gammans: All motorists put up with these burdens, but, in addition, this particular section of motorists to whom I am referring pay this high taxation, and, what is more, have to bear the very high cost of keeping old cars on the road. I am sure that any hon. Member who has an old car would agree with me that it costs a fantastic sum of money to keep such cars on the road. Do let us get it out of our heads that everyone who owns a motor car uses it only for pleasure. Two out of three people who own a car today use it for some form of business or profession.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to this point. We on this side do not believe that he is going to lose any money; if he does, it will only be a very small sum at the very worst, and it will mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester pointed out, that many cars which are today locked up will come on to the road again. In granting this concession, not only will the Chancellor be redeeming the pledge of his Government, but also the pledge


given by about 70 hon. Members opposite at the time of the General Election that they would support a Clause like this if it ever came before the Committee. I suggest, in addition, that he will be doing an elemental act of justice to a small section of the community.

Mr. Edelman: In spite of the way in which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) has advocated this Clause, I would ask my right hon. Friend to address his attention to its merits. My major complaint against the tax which exists today is that it is unfair, and that, surely seems to be the reason which should weigh in his mind when considering the income which the tax as it stands at present brings into the Exchequer.
The tax is inequitable and weighs most heavily on those people who are not in a position to buy a new car. In fact, the majority of those who today are running pre-1947 cars are not, as some people may imagine, the decayed aristocracy driving about in decrepit Rolls Royces. The truth is that such cars belong for the most part to people who are unable, for one reason or another, to purchase new cars. Therefore, the incidence of taxation weighs far more grievously on them than on those who since 1947 have been able to obtain new cars.
I know that my right hon. Friend might urge that under present conditions he needs the money. But I would urge him to consider that in this matter what should weigh with him most is not simple expediency, but equity. Therefore, I hope he will consider the Clause sympathetically and will express an intention, in one way or another, to see that the existing anomaly is dispensed with.

Mr. McAdden: I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the Committee have been very much fortified by the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry. North (Mr. Edelman), and are delighted to know that there are today hon. Members opposite who feel, as they did 12 months ago, and even 12 months before that, that this is an unfair tax, and that the remedy we are proposing is a just and equitable one. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members on this side when I say that I hope this sense of unfairness will not only weigh with the Chancellor,

but with those who have spoken about it, and that should it come to a vote they will translate their sense of fairness and justice into action in the Division Lobby.
I must, of course, declare my interest in this matter, and it is that I am the part owner of a 1937 Austin Eight. I can assure the Committee that, therefore, I do very clearly understand what would be the effect of the Clause upon the owner or part-owner of a car of ancient vintage.
All of us recognise that the maintenance costs and costs of repairs of cars which are badly worn out because of the disgraceful condition of the roads today inevitably mean heavier expense for the owners or part-owners of these cars than for those who have been fortunate enough to get more modern cars. I believe that there is a general feeling on both sides of the Committee that, although this matter has been allowed to go uncorrected upon previous occasions, on this occasion the Chancellor will see his way clear to do what all sides of the Committee agree is the just and right and proper thing to do—that is to say, to ensure that those who are not in a position to get modern cars have the same measure of assistance as those who are. This new and equitable Clause would provide that assistance, and it represents the minimum of justice that the Chancellor ought to be able to do.

Dr. King: I shall not detain the Committee more than a minute in supporting this new Clause, the argument for which has been exceedingly well put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I would make a point that has not yet been made. When we argued this case last year the Chancellor stated that the justification for imposing the old horse-power rate of tax on old cars was that they had not carried the very high Purchase Tax which new cars carried.
I suggest to the Chancellor that most of the old cars today are secondhand in the sense that they have been bought and sold in the market, and generally the new prices which they fetch are prices which are high—unduly high—because of the very Purchase Tax which is imposed on new cars. The people who pay high prices for secondhand cars ought, in equity and in justice, to have the benefit of the new tax rate. I do urge the Chancellor to accept this new Clause.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I seek to intervene only for a few minutes to put forward a special plea for the returned ex-Service man from overseas, who, when he came back from the war, set up a business of his own; whose capital necessarily, after six or seven years in the Service, was short; who was unable to buy a new car secondhand because that meant an outlay of capital of some £600 or £700; and who, therefore, had to go to the bottom of the secondhand market, which inevitably meant buying a car of 22 horse-power or 30 horse-power for some £300, a great deal of which has had to be paid on the hire purchase system.
Not only does he have to bear in his small business all the extensive repairs thereto, but he also has to pay a tax which is something like £30 a year. Of course, that falls very heavily upon the small man, and it is rather galling for him to meet a rich man who, perhaps, was not serving during the war, who has a Rolls Bentley and a Rolls Royce and an expensive new station waggon—the total horsepower of those three vehicles being some 90 horse-power—and who is paying exactly the same car tax as the man who is paying £30 on his 22 horse-power car. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have always supported the small man—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, they always suggest that they support the small man, and they have an opportunity of doing so tonight.
The 10 horse-power tax was introduced to encourage our motor car manufacturers to produce larger cars. The only thing to discourage them from doing that before the war was the 25s. per horse-power tax. Another disadvantage to a large horse-power car is the higher petrol consumption, but now that the cost of petrol has leapt up this tax is defeating its own ends. In all the circumstances, I ask the Chancellor to consider this solution to the problem, and to have a ceiling tax, if he thinks fit, of, say, £20 on old cars, to level matters out so that there is some equity. If this tax remains, poor people with no capital who are buying cars on the hire-purchase system are hit all along the line; they are hit on the cost of petrol, on the tax and on the repairs. They deserve some equity, and I ask the Chancellor to take action.

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) said, in moving this new Clause, that I was pretty familiar with the arguments already. I

think that goes for every hon. Member, because this is the third year in succession that we have discussed this matter. If I remember rightly, there is one difference between the proposal this year and the previous proposals. On this occasion it is not proposed to apply a simple flat-rate tax to every car; in other words, simply to extend the £10 tax to every pre-war car.
This new Clause introduces a differentiation between cars of seven horsepower and under and those above. I am a little surprised at this change, because it seems to run contrary to the general principle, which I thought was approved on all sides of the Committee, of encouraging manufacturers to produce larger cars, or if not larger cars at any rate cars suitable for the export markets, by having a single tax.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think he is in error in his belief, because if we had at any time moved a new Clause to that effect, it would have been out of order because it would have meant imposing an additional tax. I think that all the previous suggestions have been on these lines.

Mr. David Renton: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the new Clause we have put down this year is the same as the one we put down last year, because I have a copy of last year's in my hand.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have not, I admit, looked up the Clause proposed last year. What has been put to me several times in Questions, and also advocated in speeches during the Budget debate, is that there should be a simple extension of the single tax to pre-war cars. That is an important point, because the distinction introduced in this Clause is contrary to the idea which my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Local Government and Planning had when he introduced the £10 tax for new cars. I think that that is one of the objections to this Clause.
Also, the Clause would, as the hon. Member for Chichester rightly guessed, cost us £6 million. I say at once that I cannot accept the argument that he put forward, that our achieving in Revenue £5½ million more on the Petrol Tax than we had expected is relevant to the question of this year's expenditure. He knows


quite well that it has nothing to do with it. As for the argument that more cars would come out of the barns and backyards if we reduced the tax in this way on the pre-1947-cars, I am bound to say that I look upon that with a very sceptical eye indeed. I think that is the kind of argument that is very likely to be put up by those concerned, but I see no evidence to believe that we should in this way make up for the loss of Revenue. If the running costs of the older cars are so high, it seems most unlikely that a relatively small change—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—it is a relatively small change on the majority of the cars—would be likely to have much influence on their decision whether to bring their cars out or not.
9.30 p.m.
The question is really: Who benefits from these proposals, and is this new Clause justifiable when considered against the general background of the Budget and all the other claims that are made upon us? The answer, of course, is that primarily it will be the owners of the larger horse-power pre-war cars who will benefit, although there will be some who will benefit from this proposed new Clause who have very small cars, both old and new, the major part of any benefit will undoubtedly go to the owners of the larger pre-war cars.
I cannot agree that they can be described as the poorer motorists. I see no evidence for that suggestion whatever. I know very few poor motorists who own large 20 horse-power and 30 horse-power pre-war cars. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may think that they are poor by some standards of their own, but they are not poor in relation to the general body of taxpayers, and that is what I have to consider.
When we hear pleas, which I can well understand, of those who have to buy secondhand cars and the difficulty they have, we must not overlook the fact that the great benefit of this new Clause goes not to those who are thinking of buying cars but to all the present owners of these cars, the vast majority of whom have been owners of these cars for some years and bought them at much lower prices and have had a very substantial capital gain as a result of the rise in the price of secondhand cars. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is perfectly true.

It is no good hon. Members saying, "Look at the poor ex-Service man who has to pay such a high price for his secondhand car" without remembering that someone has got the benefit of the high price of secondhand cars.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: How does the right hon. Gentleman contend that they are having a capital gain if they have to keep their old cars and cannot afford to buy new ones?

Mr. Gaitskell: They have had a capital gain as a result of the rise in price of secondhand cars. A large number of people do in fact obtain gains on that account. One cannot say that secondhand cars have gone up in value without indicating that somebody or other has benefited by it. Someone bought it and someone sold it.
This, of course, is something which we would quite like to do. We recognise that there is some anomaly here, but I do not think and I cannot accept that it is a serious case of hardship. None of the owners of these pre-1947 cars have suffered anything except in comparison with people who have bought new cars and who pay the £10 tax, but I suggest that they are not worse off than before and, as I have indicated, some are very much better off. We have to contrast their position with the many other claimants to the £6 million, if there is £6 million going. I am bound to tell the Committee that in my judgment there are many prior claimants to this money who are far more in need of it than the owners of fairly old and fairly large pre-war high power cars, and, therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject the Clause.

Sir Arthur Salter: I rise for a moment to interject into this debate a consideration which seems not to have been mentioned or at least to have had very little attention either in the debate here or in the debates outside this Chamber. I am not going to say a word about the hardships or the anomalies or the effect upon the individual who happens to own a old car. My hon. Friends and, indeed, Members opposite have developed those arguments and, of course, they are quite familiar ones.
I want to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that perhaps he is getting no national advantage at all


to set against these anomalies and injustices. I want to relate this to what I understand to be the basic principle of the Chancellor's Budget. The Chancellor has based his Budget, as have his predecessors in recent years, on the principle of obtaining an excess of of Revenue over expenditure sufficient to do something as a counter-inflationary force.
The effect of this differentiation in taxation on the older car is, I suggest, probably inflationary. I agree that to the extent to which the Chancellor gets his Revenue—though of course the net Revenue may be reduced by the considerations mentioned by my hon. Friends—he is withdrawing purchasing power and this is counter-inflationary. But undoubtedly a considerable number of cars, which would otherwise have been in use, will be withheld from use, and year by year as the individual owner of an aged car looks at his increasing expenses, he will be induced, by the addition of this extra tax, to scrap his car or lay it up prematurely a year or two before the time.
The Chancellor can deal with inflation either by effecting the supply side of the equation or the demand side. I suggest that the extent to which cars are withheld from use or prematurely scrapped—not because they are not worth running on their intrinsic merits, but because there is added to the cost this differentiating tax—the Chancellor is doing what is equivalent to a reduction in production. Of course, no one can calculate exactly what is the effect of this tax either in leaving cars unused or by inducing owners to scrap them prematurely. I cannot but believe that the net effect of that on the supply side will be greater than the counter-inflationary effect of the Chancellor's £6 million.
I am not going to say a word about hardships. Indeed, I happen to be the owner of an old car, and because of that I would not argue on that ground. I am presenting an economic argument, and I am relating it to the Revenue in a Budget that is based on the principle, not merely of covering expenditure with Revenue, but of securing an excess of Revenue over expenditure to meet inflation. My suggestion is that the net effect of this is slightly inflationary, and, therefore, there is no net national advantage at

all to set against the personal injustices and anomalies.

Mr. Renton: It is a pity that the brief to which the Chancellor was speaking when he replied just now to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) was prepared before the speech of my hon. Friend was made. It is a pity he read from that brief instead of answering my hon. Friend's arguments. I am particularly sorry that that was so, because the year before last, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) was winding up a similar debate, he gave an undertaking that he would have the figure which he then gave—it was £5¾ million—very carefully examined to see whether it was accurate and whether it was a net loss to the Treasury. It seems to me that in the past two years Treasury thinking has not moved very far on this subject.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to close this matter tonight by continuing to disregard the various amounts which, as my hon. Friend for Chichester has pointed out, should be set off against the gross immediate loss which the Exchequer expects to have as a result of this Clause. Surely the Chancellor ought to be more alive than he apparently is to his own self interest.
I do beseech him to consider the possibility that we are doing him a very great kindness by moving this new Clause and enabling him to scrape a few more £s from his fellow citizens rather more honestly than he generally does. I hope that the Chancellor will get up and say that his mind is not closed on this matter and that he is prepared to consider it further between now and the Report stage. There are many hon. Members who will be saved a great deal of embarrassment if he makes such a statement, and he should take advantage of this opportunity.

Mr. Michael Astor: I agree with one thing the Chancellor said, and that is that nearly all the arguments which can be advanced in favour of this Clause are already well known to the Committee. I have one suggestion which might help him to accept the substance of the new Clause. The Chancellor told the Committee that he cannot afford the loss of the £6 million Revenue, quite apart from anything else. Let the Committee accept that argument for one


moment. The Chancellor is at the moment ill-at-ease—or he should be—because he recognises that there are gross injustices in the 1947 proposal.
A means test, which is not exactly what I am going to propose, is unpopular politically and usually undesirable, but the sort of man we are trying to help is not the man who turns over old cars every six months and makes a profit on them. It is the man who has been in possession of an old car for some time and has been unable to acquire a new one, either through lack of money or opportunity. Is it not possible to meet the claims of these people who have bought old cars since 1947, if this is the only car they have?
At this point it is necessary for the Chancellor to accept the fact that there are people who need a large car, either for family or business reasons. I believe my suggestion would be a way of meeting the difficulty, and that it would certainly not cost the Chancellor £6 million. The present position is now unjust and unsatisfactory and the Chancellor has made no attempt to mitigate it. The argument I have advanced is in the nature of a compromise. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the suggestion would be workable, and then perhaps we could discuss its merits in more detail?

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: I rise in the hope that I can help to shorten the discussion. Cannot both sides of the Committee agree that there is nothing to be said against the Clause except the cost? If we acknowledge that we are getting down to the core of the problem. In drawing up his Budget proposals my right hon. Friend had to weigh in his mind the relative strength of many claims for tax reliefs which he could give in a Budget which had to levy additional taxation to pay for our re-armament, and he had to discriminate between one possible tax relief and another.
It is not now reasonable for the Committee to ask the Chancellor at this stage of the Finance Bill to accept a Clause which will cost the Exchequer between £5,500,000 and £6 million this year, as he is no longer in a position to propose an additional tax burden to compensate for that loss of revenue. My right hon. Friend might have considered smoothing out the anomaly by imposing an additional 1d. a gallon on petrol, for instance,

but as he did not decide to do that, he is now no longer free to do it because we have passed the Clause dealing with the Petrol Duty.
All we are really dealing with is whether it is reasonable to ask the Chancellor to make this concession now in the circumstances of the present budgetary situation. If it is not reasonable—I am sure the Committee will agree that it is not—there is no point in pursuing the merits of the Clause. We accept that there is no merit in this continued anomaly. Perhaps the Chancellor failed to appreciate in his reply the passion of the British taxpayer for equity; I think the Chancellor has had long enough contact with the Civil Service to know that the comparative grievance is the biggest grievance of all, and that it is no comfort to the owner of an old car to tell him that he is not paying any more tax than he was paying before and all that has happened is that somebody else is paying less; but seeing that I have carried hon. and right hon. Gentlemen with me so far, I respectfully suggest that they accept the Chancellor's reply.

Mr. Lionel Heald: During the last few minutes the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have been saying, "Save us from our friends!" He has been given a defence which he himself did not try to put forward, and he may be thankful for it.
I want to make a strong protest against the extraordinarily cynical and airy attitude with which the proposal has been brushed aside by the Chancellor. It provides an excellent test of the Government's attitude towards the country at the present time. There is not the slightest sign of realisation that this affects him. We do not quite know the figures, but there are certainly well over one million cars representing at least two people each who probably have notes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer brushes those two million people aside just like that. It is typical of the attitude of the gentleman in Whitehall who knows best. He has no conception of what strong feeling there is all over the country on this subject. In my constituency I have been astonished to find the number of people who have written and spoke and telephoned to me about it. And they are not all blood-sucking capitalists.
One has only to go outside this place and look at the cars, as we did the other night, to see over 100 belonging to Government supporters. Of course, some of them pay only £10, but there are some Members who have a 14 horse-power Morris. What did the Chancellor say? That this might benefit a few people with old high horse-power cars. Does not a man with a 14 horse-power Morris matter to anybody? He pays £11 more than we say he ought to pay. We say that this is an example, a remnant, of the old bogus class warfare of Socialism. The Chancellor

does not even yet realise that there are millions of people, on whose votes he depends, who own these cars and who are hit by this tax. I hope they will take the opportunity of hitting him.

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 272.

Division No. 137.]
AYES
[9.55 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hobson, G. R.


Adams, Richard
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Helman, P.


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Houghton, D.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hoy, J.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Deer, G.
Hubbard, I.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Delargy, H. J.
Hudson James (Ealing, N.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Awbery, S. S.
Donnelly, D.
Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)


Ayles, W. H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bacon, Miss Alick
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Baird, J.
Dye, S.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Balfour, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Edelman, M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Bartley, P.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Janner, B.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jay, D. P. T.


Benn, Wedgwood
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Benson, G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St Pancras, S.)


Beswick, F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jenkins, R. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Bing, G. H. C.
Ewart, R.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Blyton, W. R.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Boardman, H.
Finch, H. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Booth, A.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Bottomley, A. G.
Follick, M.
Keenan, W.


Bowden, H. W.
Foot, M. M.
Kenyon, C.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Forman, J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
King, Dr H. M.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Freeman, John (Watford)
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Kinley, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Burke, W. A.
Gibson, C. W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Burton, Miss E.
Gilzean, A.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Glanville, James (Consett)
Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Gooch, E. G.
Lindgren, G. S.


Carmichael, J.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Granville, Edgar (Eye)
Logan, D. G.


Champion, A. J.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Longden Fred (Small Heath)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
McAllister, G.


Clunie, J.
Grey, C. F.
McGhee, H. G.


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McGovern, J.


Coldrick, W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McInnes, J.


Collick, P.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mack, J. D.


Collindridge, F.
Gunter, R. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Cook, T. F.
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)


Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McLeavy, F.


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Hall, John (Gateshead W.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Hamilton, W. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Cove, W. G.
Hannan, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hardy, E. A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Crawley, A.
Hargreaves, A.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hastings, S.
Manuel, A. C.


Crossman, R. H. S
Hayman, F. H.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Tipton)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Daines, P.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mellish, R. J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Messer, F.




Middleton, Mrs. L.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Timmons, J.


Mikardo, Ian.
Rhodes, H.
Tomney, F.


Mitchison, G. R.
Richards, R.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Moeran, E. W.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Monslow, W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Vernon, W. F.


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Viant, S. P.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wallace, H. W.


Morley, R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Watkins, T. E.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Mort, D. L.
Ross, William
Weitzman, D.


Moyle, A.
Royle, C.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mulley, F. W.
Snackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Murray, J. D.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
West, D. G.


Nally, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh E.)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


O'Brien, T.
Simmons, C. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Oldfield, W. H.
Slater, J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilkes, L.


Orbach, M.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, s.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Padley, W. E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Pannell, T. C.
Stakes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Pargiter, G. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Paton, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Peart, T. F.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Popplewell, E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Porter, G.
Sylvester, G. O.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wise, F. J.


Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Yates, V. F.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Rankin, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)



Rees, Mrs. D.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Reeves, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thurtle, Ernest





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gales, Maj. E. E.


Alport, C. J. M.
Clyde, J. L.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Colegate, A.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grimond, J.


Arbuthnot, John
Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Harden, J. R. E.


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Baker, P. A. D.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crouch, R. F.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Harvey, Air Cdrs. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Banks, Col. C.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Baxter, A. B.
Cundiff, F. W.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hay, John


Bell, R. M.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh. S.)
Head, Brig. A. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Davidson, Viscountess
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir Cuthbers


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Heald, Lionel


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
de Chair, Somerset
Heath, Edward


Birch, Nigel
De la Bère, R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bishop, F. P.
Deedes, W. F.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Black, C. W.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Higgs, J. M. C.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Boothby, R.
Donner, P. W.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bossom, A. C.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Drayson, G. B.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boyle, Sir Edward
Drewe, C.
Hollis, M. C.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir. T. (Richmond)
Hope, Lord John


Braine, B. R.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hopkinson, Henry


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Eccles, D. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Erroll, F. J.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fisher, Nigel
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fort, R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Foster, John
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hurd, A. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gage, C. H.
Hutchison, Col. James (Glasgow)


Carson, Hon. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Channon, H.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Hylton-Foster, H. B.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Gammans, L. D.
Jeffreys, General Sir George


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Jennings, R.




Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nabarro, G.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)


Kaberry, D.
Nicholson, G.
Stevens, G. P.


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Nutting, Anthony
Storey, S.


Langford-Holt, J.
Oakshott, H. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Odey, G. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Leather, E. H. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Studholme, H. G.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Summers, G. S.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Lindsay, Martin
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Linstead, H. N.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Osborne, C.
Teeling, W.


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Teevan, T. L.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Thompson, Kenneth Push (Walton)


Low, A. R. W.
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Tilney, John


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Profumo, J. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


McAdden, S. J.
Raikes, H. V.
Turton, R. H.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Redmayne, M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


McKibbin, A.
Renton, D. L. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Maclay, Hon. John
Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robson-Brown, W.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Roper, Sir Harold
Watkinson, H.


Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.
Ropner, Col. L.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Russell, R. S.
Wheatley, Maj. M. J. (Poole)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur.
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Maude, John (Exeter)
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Maudling, R.
Scott, Donald
Wills, G.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Shepherd, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mellor, Sir John
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Molson, A. H. E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wood, Hon. R.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
York, C.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Snadden, W. McN.



Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Soames, Capt. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Major Conant and Mr. Vosper.



Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 275: Noes, 281.

Division No. 138.]
AYES
[10.5 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Braine, B. R.
Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)


Alport, C. J. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Cundiff, F. W.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Arbuthnot, John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Davidson, Viscountess


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Davies, Nigel (Epping)


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
de Chair, Somerset


Baker, P. A. D.
Burden, F. A.
De la Bère, R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Butcher, H. W.
Deedes, W. F.


Baldwin, A. E.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Digby, S. Wingfield


Banks, Col. C.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Baxter, A. B.
Carson, Hon. E.
Donner, P. W.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Channon, H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Bell, R. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Drewe, C.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Clyde, J. L.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Birch, Nigel
Colegate, A.
Eccles, D. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Black, C. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Corbett. Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Erroll, F. J.


Boothby, R.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fisher, Nigel


Bossom, A. C.
Cranborne, Viscount
Fort, R.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Foster, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col, O. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Crouch, R. F.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)




Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Gage, C. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Low, A. R. W.
Russell, R. S.


Gammans, L. D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbign)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Gales, Maj. E. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McAdden, S. J.
Scott, Donald


Granville, Edgar (Eye)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Shepherd, William


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Grimond, J.
McKibbin, A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Maclay, Hon. John
Snadden, W. McN


Harden, J. R. E.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Soames, Capt. C.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hay, John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Head, Brig. A. H.
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir Cuthbert
Maude, John (Exeter)
Storey, S.


Heald, Lionel
Maudling, R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Heath, Edward
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mellor, Sir John
Studholme, H. G.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Molson, A. H. E.
Summers, G. S.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Monckton, Sir Walter
Sutcliffe, H.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hilt, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Teeling, W.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Teevan, T. L.


Hollis, M. C.
Nabarro, G.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hope, Lord John
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)


Hopkinson, Henry
Nicholson, G.
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Tilney, John


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nutting, Anthony
Turner, H. F. L.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Turton, R. H.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)
Odey, G. W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Vane, W. M. F.


Hurd, A. R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vosper, D. F.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hutchison, Col. James (Glasgow)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Osborne, C.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Jennings, R.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pitman, I. J.
Watkinson, H.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Kaberry, D.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Raikes, H. V.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wills, G.


Langford-Holt, J.
Redmayne, M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Leather, E. H. C.
Renton, D. L. M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
York, C.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)



Lindsay, Martin
Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Linstead, H. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Brigadier Mackeson and


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. (King's Norton)
Robson-Brown, W.
Major Wheatley.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Benn, Wedgwood
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Adams, Richard
Benson, G.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Albu, A. H.
Beswick, F.
Burke, W. A.


Alien, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Burton, Miss E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bing, G. H. C.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Blenkinsop, A.
Callaghan, L. J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Blyton, W. R.
Carmichael, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Boardman, H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Booth, A.
Champion, A. J.


Ayles, W. H.
Bottomley, A. G.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bowden, H. W.
Clunie, J.


Baird, J.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Cocks, F. S.


Balfour, A.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Coldrick, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Collick, P.


Bartley, P.
Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Collindridge, F.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Broughton, Dr A. D. D.
Cook, T. F.







Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pryde, D. J.


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rankin, J.


Cove, W. G.
Janner, B.
Reeves, J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, D. P. T.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Crawley, A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Rhodes, H.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jenkins, R. H.
Richards, R.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Daines, P.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Ross, William


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Keenan, W.
Royle, C.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kenyon, C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Deer, G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Ron Sir Hartley


Delargy, H. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Kinghorn, Sqn Ldr. E.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Donnelly, D.
Kinley, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Simmons, C. J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Slater, J.


Dye, S.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Edelman, M.
Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lindgren, G. S.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Logan, D. G.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McAllister, G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Ewart, R.
McGovern, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Mack, J. D.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Finch, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Follick, M.
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Foot, M. M.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Timmons, J.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Manuel, A. C.
Tomney, F.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gibson, C. W.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gilzean, A.
Mellish, R. J.
Vernon, W. F.


Glanville, James (Consett)
Messer, F.
Viant, S. P.


Gooch, E. G.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Wallace, H. W.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian.
Watkins, T. E.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mitchison, G. R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Moeran, E. W.
Weitzman, D.


Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
West, D. G.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morley, R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh E.)


Gunter, R. J.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Mort, D. L.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moyle, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mulley, F. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hamilton, W. W.
Murray, J. D.
Wilkes, L.


Hannan, W.
Nally, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hardy, E. A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Hargreaves, A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Hastings, S.
O'Brien, T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hayman, F. H.
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Tipton)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Herbison, Miss M.
Orbach, M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Holman, P.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pannell, T. C.
Wise, F. J.


Houghton, D.
Pargiter, G. A.
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Hoy, J.
Paton, J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Hubbard, T.
Peart, T. F.
Yates, V. F.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Popplewell, E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Porter, G.



Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)




Question put, and agreed to.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 3 OF FINANCE ACT, 1920.)

Subsection (2) of section three of the Finance Act, 1920, shall have effect as if for the words "nineteen hundred and twenty," there were substituted the words "nineteen hundred and fifty-one," and as if for the words "ten pounds, ten shillings and tenpence," there were substituted the words "seven pounds, seventeen shillings and sixpence."—[Colonel Gomme-Duncan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.15 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am grateful for the opportunity of bringing forward this question on behalf of the whisky industry in Scotland. May I at the outset assure the Committee that I never in any circumstances drink whisky. Whatever may be the merits or otherwise of the case I am attempting to put forward, no one can say that it has any personal interest. Recently we had a debate on a White Paper published by His Majesty's Government called "The Programme of Highland Development."
Whisky, as is no doubt well known, is one of the vitally important industries in the Highlands of Scotland. In dealing with the Highland problem, the Government White Paper says, in paragraph 3:
Fundamentally the Highland problem is to encourage people to live in the Highlands by making it possible to secure there, in return for reasonable efforts, proper standards of life and the means of paying for them. The depopulation of the Highlands has long been viewed with concern.
The Secretary of State for Scotland—and I am glad to see the Joint Undersecretary of State is here tonight—was most emphatic in that debate in stating how vitally important it was that everything possible should be done to preserve life in the Highlands and to restore it where it is in danger of failing. He said that he had no hesitation in affirming that:
The industries most likely to flourish in our Highland counties are those ancillary to the basic occupations of agriculture, fisheries and afforestation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 408.]
Later, he said that there was another source from which assistance may be given to industry in the Highlands, and that was the Development Fund.
I know that he said that the Development Commissioners are authorised and prepared to make advances to local authorities for building factories, and so on; but these are all proposals for the introduction of new industries to the Highlands. Side by side with the appeal of the Secretary of State that everything possible should be done to restore Highland industries, is the Chancellor's devastating tax which is rapidly killing one of the greatest industries in the Highlands—the Excise duty on whisky.
It may not be known to some hon. Members that the present tax on whisky is £10 10s. 10d. per proof gallon. We suggest that that figure should be reduced to £7 17s. 6d. There is nothing sacrosanct in the figure we have chosen. It was chosen with a view to bringing to the notice of the Government the very serious state of this great Highland industry due to excessive taxation. I should like to put a little more clearly the effect of this on agriculture in Scotland, because whisky is a product of agriculture. Distilling is the best market for malting barley which, as everybody knows, is a high grade barley which grows particularly well in parts of Scotland.
This tax of £10s. 10s. 10d. per proof gallon represents the positively staggering figure of a tax of £1,000 per acre of barley grown in Scotland for distilling. I think that everybody will agree that that is a positively staggerng figure for agriculture in the Highlands to have to face.

Mr. Carmichael: You are all staggering already.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg the hon. Gentleman to take this problem seriously. The approximate yield of barley per acre is 19 cwts which, if it is good quality barley, will make 100 proof gallons of whisky. If that is multiplied by £10 10s. 10d., the answer is almost exactly £1,000 per acre of barley grown.
A healthy home market is absolutely essential if this great Highland industry is to be kept alive. We must have greater supplies at home than we have now, and it is essential that those supplies at home should be cheaper. They cannot be cheaper so long as this terrific tax remains upon what, after all, is one of the most important industries in the country. It cannot survive on foreign trade alone,


although everybody will admit, and you, Major Milner, I am sure are aware, that the part which whisky distilling has played in our dollar earnings, for its size, exceeds that of any other industry in this country. But it cannot go on if there is no home market as well.
In the last two years, 30 million proof gallons of whisky have been made. It is not yet ready for sale, but when it is it will have to be realised that the foreign market cannot absorb it and that it must come on to the home market, which will make sales impossible if the price remains as it is at present, because people cannot afford to pay 35s. per bottle for whisky. I am talking of people of moderate incomes, who are the vast majority of the people of this country and those upon whom this trade depends.
Before 1914, a man earning £2 a week could easily afford a bottle of whisky a week, because it cost him 3s. Today, if he is earning £5 a week or more, he has to pay 35s. for a bottle. It is no good hon. Members laughing at this; these are facts, and they are very vital facts to the case which I am trying to put. This is a home product. Why should this home product suffer more than imported products?
Let me give an example, very briefly, by illustrating the difference between the prices of cigarettes and whisky. Before 1914, 20 cigarettes cost 6d.; they are now 3s. 6d., which is a sixfold increase. For whisky, it was 3s. a bottle then, and was also much stronger than it is today. [An HON. MEMBER: "How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know?"] I can assure hon. Members that, although I do not drink whisky myself, I do meet other people who do. What is more, when I very generously stood them a whisky in 1914, I knew what I paid for it, and I appreciate the difference between what I paid then and what it costs me now. Today's price of 35s. a bottle represents more than a tenfold increase, as opposed to the sixfold increase in the case of cigarettes. Of that tenfold increase, eight-tenths is in respect of Excise Duty. Why should this be? Tobacco is grown by foreigners and is imported, while whisky is a home product, produced in this country by British people. Why should it be selected for this positively killing taxation?
I hope the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary will give serious attention to this matter. I realise that his financial position is very difficult, and I will not go into the reasons for that, though it is a fact, and I realise the difficulties of reducing taxation. I also realise that the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking for the Government of which he also is a Member, has said that everything possible must be done to restore prosperity to the Highlands, and that whisky is one of the most important items in that plan. That is an inescapable fact which his right hon. Friend is advocating and which, presumably, the Chancellor will also support, and, I hope, the whole Cabinet.
Our proposal would mean a reduction of about 7s. in the price of a bottle of whisky. Why must this vital industry in the Highlands pay 400 per cent. taxation at the wholesale level when even luxuries like diamonds, which nobody really needs, pay only 100 per cent? Honestly, I tell the Committee, I cannot understand the point of view of the tax collector or tax imposer—400 per cent. on a vital industry based on home grown materials, and 100 per cent. on luxuries like diamonds. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, to realise that I am not appealing from the point of view of drinking whisky, but from the point of view of an important Highland industry, which is in very serious danger of failing altogether because of high taxation.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: In supporting this Motion, I want to give my reasons for doing so. They are briefly these. When I was very young—it is a long time ago—I often failed to achieve the high hopes of both my parents and my teachers. In fact, the only prize I ever won at school was for scripture, and it was won. I must say, to my own intense surprise and that of my teachers. We were always told that when one failed, the only thing to do was to try, try again, to remember the old adage of Bruce and the spider.
Therefore, for the sake of hon. Members opposite who have not, perhaps, been in the House so very long, I would recall that for 10 years now we have been waging a forlorn fight to help the Scottish whisky industry. In 1942 we secured one slight crumb from the Chancellor's table, but it


was very small. Then the fight was taken up again in 1945 and 1946 on the Finance Bills, and yet again in 1947, but with no results whatever. Therefore, we come once more to the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend to try to enforce the opinion of Scotland as well as the opinion of this Committee on the Economic Secretary, that only by some effort on the part of the Treasury can this vital industry of Scotland be kept alive.
I, too, am not personally interested, though not for the same reason as that given by my hon. and gallant Friend. But I have a nostalgic memory of those happy carefree days when, after a long day's work in the House of Commons, or elsewhere, I went home and had a very small whisky and soda, small because even in those days it was rather expensive. Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I also am thinking of posterity. Some day people will once again want to drink whisky, as indeed they do today if only they could get it. If it were made possible for our children to enjoy some of the things that we are being denied—and, surely, that is something for which hon. Members opposite should have a paternal fondness—I am sure we should all be glad.
My hon. Friend referred to one thing that will, possibly, not affect many English people, particularly if they are strong tea-drinkers. It is that the whisky manufacturing industry is one of our most important dollar earners. It could also be one of our most important sterling earners if given the chance. May I make a constructive suggestion to the Committee? At present our foreign exports are the only means by which the whisky industry of Scotland can be maintained. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is made so expensive at home that nobody can afford to buy it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]
10.30 p.m.
Therefore, instead of sending our whisky abroad so that people in America and Canada may enjoy it, why not keep it in this country, through a reduction of the Excise Duty, and use it as a bait to bring American and Canadian visitors here? We have tried many methods of inducing American and Canadian visitors to come and spend their dollars here. We have even gone to the length of something like £9 million in establishing a Festival. I will tell the

Committee something. [Interruption.] Whisky does not seem to be so scarce as I thought.
Any hon. Member who goes to any of the great stores in London today will find that trade this summer is not so good as it was last summer, or, on the average of several summers. That is true; I can prove it by figures. The reason is that we are not getting the American and Canadian visitors we had hoped we would get through the Festival. Therefore, we can assumed that, as a dollar earner, the Festival so far has not been a success.
But here we have in whisky a commodity we can manufacture without spending £9 million in doing so. All we want is that slight reduction in Excise-Duty which will enable whisky to be manufactured and sold in this country in such quantities that foreign visitors will be glad to come to this country to drink it.
I see that hon. Members are in a frivolous frame of mind and possibly unable to appreciate fully the great importance of this Motion. My hon. and gallant Friend has given the figures. A series of Chancellors have given a little crumb of comfort every year. They have always said, "Not this year, but possibly next year." The years pass and this great industry is likely to fade away; but one day, when it will be needed again and when this country will have recovered its taste for Scotch whisky and the ability to buy it, once more it will be the great fortification of the Treasury.
I ask the Economic Secretary and the Financial Secretary to pay heed to these figures. They can note that Scotland today feels it is slightly divorced from the attention of the authorities in Whitehall. Self-government for Scotland is making great inroads among some of our people. They feel they are being neglected and that this great Scottish industry is being neglected. The Chancellor can do more to kill the Scottish Covenant by accepting this new Clause than by any other single act.

Mr. Boothby: Scotland has given much to the world. There is no doubt that three of the greatest gifts she has bestowed on mankind are herrings, oatmeal and whisky. I do not think the Committee realises what a dollar earner whisky is to this


country. In comparison with the amount of labour that is employed and the amount of money involved, the amount of dollars we get back is fantastic. The amount of dollars earned per man-hour is far higher than in any other industry, and the whisky industry is one of the greatest dollar earners of any industry—including the Cunard Line.
This is a fantastic tax. I cannot call it punitive; I can only call it ridiculous. It is preventing the consumption of whisky in this country, and I maintain that one cannot expect to have this vast export trade in dollar areas indefinitely without some kind of home market. I believe that to be a perfectly serious and valid point. I would also point out to the Financial Secretary and the Economic Secretary that this is class legislation of the most shocking and shameless kind.
The very rich can afford whisky, they can afford to get it and to drink it, but the working class cannot. [HON. MEMBERS: "They never could."] Yes, they could. They could afford whisky when the best whisky was 3s. 0d. a bottle. If hon. Members opposite think that the working class of Scotland never could afford to buy whisky to drink, all I can say is they know nothing at all about it, and do not know their Scotland. [Interruption.] I did not say a bottle of whisky. It has not been a matter of a bottle since the halycon days before the First World War. It is an extremely healthy drink.
I remember going with a deputation to see Sir Stafford Cripps three years ago about the duty. One of the leading spokesmen on the deputation waited until the very end to bring forward the formidable point in the whole of our armoury. He said, "It is a point, Sir Stafford, which must appeal to you," and raising his voice to a hoarse whisper he added, "The younger generation in this country is losing its taste for whisky." I must say that Sir Stafford was not frightfully enthusiastic. He saw the point, but without much enthusiasm. It is true, and it is a great pity. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is tragic."] I agree, it is tragic.
We are running a grave risk of losing a great industry, which brings much prosperity to the North of Scotland and to the farmers there, and also brings an immense amount of dollars to this

country. But there are limits, and if the Government wish to impose this penal and class taxation in favour of the rich and against the poor, I suppose it is their look-out. If the present tax on whisky is maintained it may ruin one of the greatest industries of the country.

Mr. Jay: One always approaches this subject with pleasure, if only because it brings the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) into the Chamber, and deters him from chasing hares outside. I should not like this opportunity to go by without someone from these benches joining in the tribute to the whisky industry for its remarkable export record since the war.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) a short time ago very rightly gave high marks to the motor industry for the proportion of exports it had, but he was wrong in saying that it had the highest proportion of any industry. The highest marks of all go to the whisky industry, and if one measures it in terms of dollars its record is far more remarkable and better than that of any other industry. It is a remarkable feat by this great Scottish industry, employing, as it does, so comparatively few people, to have earned this high amount of dollars and yielded so much revenue to the Exchequer at the same time.
The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), who rightly said this is a very high duty, proposed a rather drastic reduction. He wants to reduce the figure from the present level of £10 10s. 10d. per proof gallon to £7 17s. 6d. That would actually mean a reduction in the price, according to my information, of 6s. 2½d. a bottle. In the present circumstances I think there could be only two reasons for the Committee accepting that proposal. The first would be that this industry, owing to lack of total demand at home and abroad, was in danger of collapse or serious decline, and the second that consumers of whisky were particularly in need of tax relief.
As to the first argument, although a very high proportion of whisky is exported, according to all the information at our disposal, it is the fact that, in spite of the high price, the demand at home still exceeds supply on the home market.


Therefore, at the moment, there is no sign of the possibility of the industry being in serious difficulty owing to lack of demand.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: This is important. The Financial Secretary says there is no sign. I had hoped that I had made it clear that 30 million gallons per year have been distilled for the last two years and there are dangerous signs that when that is ready to go on the market, the home trade will not be able to absorb it and the industry will begin to fade out because it cannot get rid of its stuff.

Mr. Jay: If that arises in future, there may be a case for doing something about it. As to the consumer, this concession would cost over £8 million and if one extended it, as I think one would have to do, to home-produced gin, it would cost something like £17 million. It seems to us in all the circumstances of this year, and having regard to other claims both on the taxation side and on the social services side, a relief of that magnitude is certainly not one of the first priorities before us on this Bill.

Mr. Spence: It seems to me that the Financial Secretary was not seized of the extremely serious situation that has developed for the distilling industry. Figures have been given and I should like to dissect them a little further. Production per year at the moment, encouraged by the Government, is 30 million gallons. The total disposals both for home and export added together, are only a little more than 12½ million gallons. Therefore, we are piling up whisky in our bonded stores at the rate of approximately 17 million gallons a year.
That was desirable over the last three or four years, for during the war and in the years subsequent to the war distilling was restricted and in some cases stopped entirely. Our bonded stores were exported and we had to make up that leeway. But what people in the trade want to know is what is the intention of the Government about the future of this industry when bonded stores are again full, as they will be in a very few years from now.
It is imposible suddenly to create a demand for whisky if one has deliberately cultivated people's palates away from it

for years, and by this punitive duty on whisky today we have deliberately educated the home market away from whisky to all kinds of foul concoctions that do no one's stomach any good. I want to quote a few words from a speech made by the predecessor of the present Financial Secretary when we were debating this very matter in June, 1949. He said:
Whisky has now been put out of the range of the great mass of the people, because of the duty and the price. It is also outside the range of many people who normally one might suppose could afford it.
How much more is it true today. Later in the debate he added:
It may well be that as the years go by, when things become normal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day may want to pay much more attention to the home market, if he is seeking revenue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1949; Vol. 466, c. 1011, 1024.]
Today the Chancellor is seeking revenue, and I suggest that if he tried to put more whisky on the home market at the present price the sales would not reach his expectations. He is now going to see the diminishing return of over-taxation. That is what I wished to say about the home market.
10.45 p.m.
Now I want to say a word about the effect of this penal taxation on exports. The fact that the Government put a duty of 400 per cent. on whisky is an incentive and an incitement to every foreign Government that imports whisky to do something of the same sort. I remember last year and three years ago warning the Government of what would happen if they kept on with this rate of taxation, and I have here a list of countries—there are 11 of them—that have raised the import duty on whisky by somewhere from £2 to £7 a case during the years 1950 and 1951. It is only when the Government reduce our own duty on whisky that they can with a clear conscience and with a good case go to our customers and say, "Take your duty down. We want to sell you more whisky."
I ask the Financial Secretary to say a word about the long-term intentions of the Government about the whisky distilling trade. The bonded stores are only a certain size, and it will not be long before they are full. The workmen, many of whom live in my constituency, want to know what is their long-term future.


Surely the Government must have a policy in this matter. Do they wish to discourage production so that we can absorb, at any rate, most of our annual production, or do they take the view that, having filled the bonded stores, they will deliberately cut down production to our yearly consumption, which would mean a reduction by more than half? I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abandon his present teetotalitarian attitude and give this trade a little encouragement.

Sir William Darling: I have some trepidation in entering this debate, but I am encouraged by the fact that English Members particularly will indulge me because on Tuesday last Scottish matters were relegated into oblivion and no attempt was made to discuss them. Questions were made impossible because of the extension of the Parliamentary Sitting. So if Scottish Members claim the attention of the Committee on this important question, it is because they have a right to do so, since this is a peculiarly Scottish question.
Whisky is not manufactured in England or Wales. There is a substantial manufacture in Northern Ireland, but in the main this is a Scottish matter. The Scottish Members are here to tell the Chancellor, as we have told every Chancellor, that this is a special industry which he handles at his peril. One day, if we are not careful, this industry will go, and with it will go one of the most valuable things from the English economy.
I do not think Members treat the subject with sufficient seriousness. Whisky is a benevolent spirit which lightens the heart of man, I know, but it is also a serious economic matter. It is not enough for Scots to hear from successive Chancellors what a wonderful contribution we make to the English revenue. We know we make an important contribution to the English Revenue, and we get little recognition of the real facts of the situation. If the burden of taxation which is borne by whisky were borne in like manner by Lancashire, we would hear a good deal from Lancashire and the cotton Members.
If the burden of taxation which Scotland carries exclusively on whisky were borne by the light engineering industry in Birmingham, we would hear a good deal

from English Members opposite. That naturally is what is happening. If the pottery trade carried a like burden in the export and the home fields to that which the whisky industry carries we should certainly hear a good deal from the pottery industry about it. It is because this is a peculiarly Scottish industry that Englishmen, who naturally, concentrate upon their own virtues, are uninterested.
We in Scotland think that this selective tax on what is a real Scottish industry is unfair and unjust, and punitive and selective in the extreme. Excise alone produces £30 million a year. When I hear the Economic Secretary say that consumption is still large, I would remind him that at the turn of the century 30 million gallons were consumed in the United Kingdom—30 million gallons in 1900—while today the consumption in the United Kingdom is 3 million gallons. Thus, in 50 years we have dropped from a consumption of 30 million gallons to a consumption of 3 million gallons. 
According to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton) that is a good thing. It will not be such a good thing for my teetotal friend on the other side of the Committee when he has to pay taxation now paid by whisky consumption and the whisky industry. Shall we not hear him squeal—as he has squealed on previous occasions? There is nothing more nauseating than the complacent, pretentious superiority of a person who drinks ginger pop—an excellent drink—or orangeade, but allows my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) and me to pay his taxes for him by our consumption of whisky, and who then has the astounding impertinence to look upon my hon. Friend and me as immoral men for that reason. That hon. Gentleman opposite and others like him come here with this nauseating nonsense—these expatriates from Scotland—because they are unable to get any Scotsmen to return them to this Chamber and have to rely on English constituents.
What would a Frenchman think if any French Government, whatever its colour, placed a punitive tax on wine? The hon. Member would not like it very much—to express the result in understatement. We in Scotland do not much like the way the Government put this punitive tax upon our national drink. We believe very


seriously that we are now possibly facing a contracted market. There is a good deal of evidence to justify that view. The United States is one of the largest consumers of Scotch whisky, but the consumption of the United States of Scotch whisky is only 5 per cent. of the product. We are coming through the rye in more than one sense. Rye whisky is encroaching on the demand for Scotch.
While we are talking of the United States, let me point out to the hon. Member for Norwich, North—the expatriate from Scotland who almost abhors this whisky as a deleterious fluid—that his party's Government's Productivity Committees—composed also of Americans—give reasons why United States productivity is greater than our own—and, be it remembered, the United States is one of the largest consumers of Scotch whisky, and that may well be one of the factors contributing to superior productivity in the United States. I certainly submit that thought for very serious consideration.
The tax, I certainly think, should be reduced for sound economic reasons. I myself am not likely to consume much more whisky, nor are my fellow countrymen, at the price it is today. The tax ought to be reduced lest it cause bitterness between the Scots and English peoples. But Mr. Dooley said:
Drink never made any man better, but it has made thousands of men think they are better.
I feel sure I am appealing to the moral character of the right hon. Gentleman—an aspect to which I rarely make any appeal—when I appeal to him, if he is not going to look at this matter from the business or economic point of view, to look at it from the moral point of view, for surely he does wish—as all hon. Gentlemen surely must wish, whatever their political party—to make the world a better place; and even if whisky will not make it a better place, it certainly could make it a little better. This specialised product which Scotland gives not only to the English but to the world at large should be preserved, fostered and encouraged. If it is not so conserved, fostered, and encouraged England will be the worse off afterwards, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be very much the poorer.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I want to intervene only for a few minutes.

I must first declare my interest in this matter, because I am a distiller of gin and a dealer in whisky and other spirits. This is just as much an English matter as it is a Scottish matter. I cannot approach it with the wit or levity of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). Gin is even harder hit on the wholesale side. I wonder how many hon. Members realise that more than fifteen-sixteenths of the wholesale price of gin is represented by duty. The danger of the position is—and I look at it purely from the fiscal angle—that if the present rate of duty on spirits is raised there is the real possibility that the Exchequer will suffer-heavily from the Revenue angle.
I have the feeling that people are going more and more off the drinking of spirits and are drinking beer and other unwholesome liquors of that sort. I do not approach this from the trade or Scottish angle but from the Exchequer angle, and I must give the Government a solemn warning that the goose that lays the golden eggs is in danger of being killed if the present high rate of duty is maintained.
So far as gin is concerned, I do not claim that consumption is declining, but that revenue will decline if the duty is increased, which may well strike a serious blow at the Excise returns. Personally, being interested in this financially, I shall not vote for this Clause if it is pressed to a Division. I only give a warning to the Exchequer that we are treading on thin ice. By a suitable reduction of the duty the yield can be increased. It is becoming too common to think that spirit can bear any amount of duty. It cannot, and I hope the Exchequer will bear in mind what I have said.

Commander Galbraith: I should like to intervene for a very brief moment. I am sorry it is the case that when Scotch whisky is mentioned it always creates a certain amount of amusement. It is right that my hon. Friends should have raised this matter tonight, because many parts of Scotland, particularly the Highlands, depend on whisky. Many are agricultural districts depending on the manufacture of whisky and the outlet it gives to their product. We talk a great deal today about the rehabilitation of the Highlands, and we should bear very much in mind the part that whisky plays in


maintaining the population of the Highlands.
The Financial Secretary said that what was being asked for was a reduction of 6s. 2d. on a bottle and that that was entirely excessive. It would reduce the price of a bottle of whisky to 28s. 9d., or something in that region. He also said that consumers were in no need of a reduction in tax. I would take him up on that point. Many of us know old people to whom a glass of whisky is almost a necessity. Many old age pensioners in my division come to me and say that if they could only have a tot of whisky now and again they would feel all the better for it, and there is no one who would deny that.
When the Financial Secretary says that a reduction of 6s. 2d. would be excessive and that consumers are not in need, I take him to task, because it shows a complete lack of realisation of the situation of certain people in the country. I can only hope that the Government will consider seriously what has been said tonight, because it was meant seriously and the matter is a serious one for certain districts in the north of Scotland.

Mr. John Hynd: Is the hon. Gentleman stating as a serious argument that if this is not done the farmers will not be able to dispose of their barley?

11.0 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not wish to delay the Committee any longer, but before I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the proposed new Clause, I want to say to the Financial Secretary that I regret very much that he took such a light-hearted view of what I tried to say. I particularly said that the actual figure of £7 17s. 6d. was not sacrosanct, but that it was an endeavour to get the matter properly discussed. Yet the only matter upon which the Financial Secretary fastened was the financial effect of that figure. He gave no answer to what I tried to put forward as the most important thing, and that was the effect upon Scottish agriculture and industry. I do not think that that shows a proper appreciation of what is, after all, a very serious matter.
While I do not intend to press this matter to a Division—and my hon.

Friends agree with me in that—I wish to put it on record that I hope sincerely that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend will before next year give this consideration, because it is a matter for which we are entitled to ask some further consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(PERSON EMPLOYED OR MAINTAINED TO TAKE CHARGE OF CHILDREN.)

In subsections (1) and (4) of section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1943, the words "sixty pounds" shall be substituted for the words 'fifty pounds."—[Mr. Remnant.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Remnant: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is an equally serious matter, though of rather a different character. I make no apology for this incursion into the complicated matter of tax allowances. Those with whom I am concerned have, after all, considerable experience of the painful extraction of taxation. If I had any fears in this, I should be reassured by the knowledge that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is present and will keep his eye on me to see that I do not misquote any of the Income Tax Rules and Regulations. I hope that perhaps I may go even further than that and enlist his support, because I am not on this occasion dealing in any way with tax evasion.
I think that the object of this Clause is probably well known, but I should like briefly to refer to its history. Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1920, provided an allowance for a housekeeper, but the provision was then restricted to a female relative, or a stranger employed by, and resident with, a widower to take charge of any children of his, or in the capacity of housekeeper. That was altered by the Finance Act, 1943, by Section 15, which extended the allowance to any taxpayer employing or maintaining a resident housekeeper to have charge of a child resident with the taxpayer.
It is illuminating to see that the Inland Revenue, in its notes on the preparation of a taxpayer's annual return of income, refers to this allowance for a person employed or maintained to take charge of


a child, and refers to it as being applicable to a taxpayer not entitled to the £180 personal allowance and having a person to look after his children. It goes on to state that to qualify for the allowance the child must be resident with the taxpayer, and the taxpayer must be entitled to claim the children's allowance.
Such a taxpayer is surely as vulnerable to the effects of rising costs in relation to the upbringing of children as a married man. Therefore, this Clause suggests that the allowance of £50 already in existence should be raised by £10 in the same way as the married allowance. I am certain that the whole of the Committee will have the utmost sympathy with anything that conduces to the benefit of children and their upbringing. This is not a big matter—I have been unable to ascertain what the cost would be, but I cannot think that it would be a very big one—and there is no precedent involved and no new allowance suggested. The allowance can be taken as being accepted for the last 30 years.
There has been no increase in the allowance for the last eight years. The Chancellor and the Financial Secretary, I presume, agree that there was justification for the increase in the married allowance, and this is, in effect, only doing the same thing. I suggest that this is the appropriate time when quite a considerable amount of help and satisfaction could be given in a small way to these people. This is an occasion when we might go farther than merely give sympathy. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will agree to make this additional advance.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Member asks us to increase the housekeeper allowance from £50 to £60. I agree with him that in a period of rising prices some case can be made out for a change in this allowance; indeed, it is one of the things one would wish to do had we been in easier financial circumstances this year. As he, I think, rightly pointed out, the housekeeper allowance can be claimed either by a widow or widower who is without small children or in the case of anybody else only by those who have children already receiving the children's allowance.
There are really two reasons why we do not feel able to accept this proposal this

year. The first is, of course, that as we have increased the children's allowance this year and as all those receiving this allowance, except for the widows and widowers, would be therefore getting the benefit of the increased children's allowance in any case, I think it can be justly said that we have done something to meet the problem in the majority of cases.
Secondly, we are of course, in reviewing all the possibilities before us, bound to count the cost and to see in relation to one another the various possible forms of relief both in income tax and elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would cost £2¼ million in a full year, and that is not an altogether inconsiderable sum.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North-West (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) rightly said both this year and last year that many of these proposals are put forward as a sort of parade so that we can look at them all and judge them next year. There is truth in that, and in much the same way we have to look at them before the Budget on their comparative merits and decide, in relation to the resources available, where the case is strongest. We did that this year, and we thought that the little relief we were able to give should be allocated to the children's allowance and the marriage allowance. Therefore, I am afraid that we cannot give that amount over this year.

Mr. Maudling: I did not cherish many hopes that the Financial Secretary would accept this Clause, but I did hope that he might have brought forward better arguments. His first argument was that there was no case for increasing the allowance because the children's allowance had been increased and that having received the benefit of that allowance, there was no strong case for an increase for those looking after the children. But we were making out a case that this was analogous to the increased marriage allowance. The married man gets the increased children's allowance and an increase for his wife. The analogy is precisely there, and therefore his first argument falls to the ground.
His second argument was based on cost. I was very surprised at the figure of £2,250,000 which he quoted. The increase is only £10 in respect of any employed person, so that the maximum any


taxpayer gets is £5. That means that the Exchequer considers that over 400,000 people will be able to claim the benefit of this new Clause. I find it very difficult to believe that figure. Perhaps the Financial Secretary is reading from the brief relating to the next new Clause, which I understand has not been selected. I am afraid it seems unlikely that the Financial Secretary will be prepared to change his mind on this matter, but I am sorry that he could not find more respectable reasons for turning it down.

Mr. Remnant: In view of the Financial Secretary's reply—which was extremely disappointing—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(AGGREGATION OF PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF DEATH DUTIES.)

Property which under a disposition not made by the deceased passes immediately on the death of the deceased to some person other than the wife or husband or a lineal ancestor or lineal descendant of the deceased shall not be aggregated with any other property for the purpose of death duties, but shall be an estate by itself, and death duties shall be levied at the proper graduated rate on the principal value thereof. Subsection (1) of section twelve of the Finance Act, 1900, is accordingly repealed.—[Mr. Turton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to deal with the law of aggregation for Death Duty purposes. The present law is that all property passing on the death of any person is aggregated together so that the rate of duty depends on the total of the property which passes on death, whether the deceased has the power to dispose of that property or not. I hope the Committee will agree that the just way of looking at this matter is this: It is quite clear that where a person leaves property to a number of different people it is only right that these different dispositions should be aggregated and the rate of duty fixed on the total disposed of. It is also right that if in addition to disposing by will he has made a settlement whereby property passes on his death to any person that that settlement also should be brought in and aggregated. But it appears manifestly unjust that property over which the deceased had no control

at all should be aggregated for Death Duty purposes at a higher rate of charge by reason thereof.
The law on Death Duties—as the Committee will know—was originally imposed by Sir William Harcourt in the Finance Act, 1894. When the proposal was made it was realised then by the Liberal Government that introduced the Measure, that it was unfair that if a man had no control over the disposition of his property it should be aggregated. In fact, my new Clause is in exactly the same terms as Section 4 of the Finance Act of 1894. Curiously, only six years after the 1894 Act was passed Parliament suddenly reversed the decision so that property over which the deceased had no control was aggregated.
11.15 p.m.
I have looked with interest at the debates in 1900 to find out what was the justification for this change that appears now to work such manifest injustice. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach said in his speech, when he moved the Clause, that the reason was to catch some wealthy persons, but in fact the people who are being caught by his net are not wealthy at all. Mr. Gibson Bowles, who made many contributions to the debates in those days, put the case very well. He said that Brown left property for life to Jones, and, on Jones's death, to a hospital, say, for distressed Chancellors of the Exchequer or for an epileptic asylum; but when the life tenant died there was absolute extinction of his whole interest in it. Why should that be aggregated with his other property?
That is the case I am putting. I ask the Government, What is the justification for this present law of aggregation? My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) raised this point five years ago on a similar debate, and the answer then given by the predecessor of the Attorney-General was that this was recommended in 1900 by a very weighty committee. I have examined that. I find that committee was nothing more nor less than a working party. It was composed of the Solicitor-General, who was aided by the Attorney-General of the day, the ex-Attorney-General, and the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. That does not seem to me to be an impartial committee to advise changes in taxation.
On that ground alone I should have thought that we should look very carefully at the present law to see whether it should be amended. It is working very great injustice. I would give the Committee an instance that was brought to my attention of a constituent who has suffered. First, let me make it clear that this injustice works usually among those who are old and who are in receipt of annuities that lapse when they die.
There was a case in my constituency where the wife had, during her life, the income from a quarter share of her father's estate. That income lapsed on her death and for Death Duty purposes it was then at £4,500. But she also had some £15,000 of her own. This is what she wished to do with it: she left the main part of it to the "Sunshine Home for Blind Babies," and the remainder, subject to a life interest, she left to the poor of Harrogate, Manchester, and Lytham St. Anne's. By reason of the fact that she had, during her life, this small annuity from her father's estate, the rate of duty goes up from 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. In fact, the people who suffered by reason of that are these charitable institutions that this lady constituent of mine wished to benefit.
I maintain that that is a case that nobody in this Committee would desire to support—that you should get an extra £200 or so out of charitable institutions that this lady wished to help. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will have knowledge of similar cases where the law of aggregation is working unjustly. I have tried to suggest a solution by going to the 1894 Act. I ask the Attorney-General if he cannot find himself in a position to revise the decision of the working party formed by all those attorneys and solicitors and himself suggest a way of dealing with this manifest injustice.

The Attorney-General: It is perfectly true that in some cases the operation of the law as it stands at present works in a rather anomalous fashion. It is equally true that it is practically impossible to draft legislation on Death Duties without there being some anomalies in some cases. I would advise the Committee to reject the new Clause because, although it might avoid anomalies resulting in the sort of case the hon. Member indicated, it would produce far worse anomalies in other directions.
The history of this matter is that a Clause such as the hon. Gentleman seeks to put into present legislation was originally in the Act of 1894. There then was appointed a Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman spoke rather slightingly, referring to it as a committee of "attorneys and solicitors." The Committee included Lord Finlay, Lord Loreburn, Lord Haldane and other distinguished persons.

Mr. Turton: They became Law Lords afterwards.

The Attorney-General: At any rate, they had it in them to become what they did. The Committee carefully studied the problem and, for reasons which are as valid today as when the Committee first pointed them out, they advised that the Section in the 1894 Act should be amended to take the form it has today. They gave various reasons, but I would quote one reason from their Report.
But the rest of the proviso is worded as to result in conferring on collaterals or strangers who take under a disposition not made by the deceased an exemption from aggregation of this property with the other property of the deceased, quite irrespective of the destination of such other property, or of the existence of any persons such as the proviso was designed to protect.
In other words, what influenced them most was that the Section in the 1894 Act produced the result that strangers to the family received, as it were, a wholly un-covenanted benefit. When property passed to them under a disposition not made by the deceased, for the wholly illogical reason, as it seemed to the Committee, that they were strangers to the family, that property was not aggregated with the rest of the estate and consequently duty was paid at a lower scale. I confess that there are arguments in favour of the view which the hon. Gentleman has presented, but these arguments were investigated by the Committee, which formed the opinion that the counter considerations which I have quoted outweighed them. They advised that the original section should be amended to its present form.
There is the much wider consideration that the whole structure of Death Duties legislation does not provide for a tax on acquisition. In other words, the scale of the tax is not measured by the amount which a particular beneficiary passes. The whole conception is based on this; that


the scale of duties should be apportioned by reference to the total aggregate value of the property which passes on death, being property in which the deceased had an interest.
If one adopts a change such as is proposed one is going directly counter to the legislation which embodies our Death Duty taxation. There is no reason in principle why this should not be done on occasions, but when it is done with such an illogical result as the one I have mentioned, and when it only advantages a limited number of persons, then I think making that change.
The point of view which the hon. Gentleman has advanced was advanced on previous occasions. A change such as is at present proposed was proposed in the Finance Bill of 1934, and Mr. Chamberlain, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, opposed it, giving reasons very similar to those I am giving today. The reasons being the same were just as valid then as they are now, and for this reason I hope the Committee will not accept the Clause.

Mr. Wilkins (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Captain Crookshank: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicate what his intentions are, as this Motion has been sprung on us in the middle of a debate? We have not even finished the Clause, so I should like to know what the Government's views are.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I think it was generally accepted that we should move to report Progress at this time. I had hoped that after the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend it might have been felt that we could come to a decision. I am anxious to help all sides, and if there is only to be one more speech perhaps we could continue.

Sir H. Williams: Two more.

Mr. Ede: If that is the position it would be better that we should report Progress now and resume on Monday.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

MRS. FELTON (VISIT TO KOREA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

11.29 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I had intended to raise this evening a matter in connection with the gas and electricity boards, but such representations were made to me about this astonishing case of Mrs. Monica Felton that I decided, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to raise this matter instead.
In order to appreciate the full significance of this case, which is a very remarkable story, I think one should know a little about the background of this woman. She was a member of the London County Council from 1937 to 1946. She was a Socialist member of the Hertfordshire County Council from 1946 to 1947. I understand that there was a time during the war when, on the recommendation of Mr. Silkin, now Lord Silkin, she was employed in a secretarial capacity on the Select Committee on National Expenditure of this House.
Subsequently, in 1946, she was appointed by Mr. Silkin to be Vice-Chairman of the Stevenage Development Corporation. In 1948, he appointed her Chairman of the Peterlee Development Corporation. In 1949, he appointed her Chairman of the Stevenage Development Corporation. I understand that when this latter appointment was made, there were some representations from members of the local council, saying that Mrs. Felton was not an adequately qualified woman for the post, but Mr. Silkin overruled their objections.
In 1950 there were complaints that she was actively engaged in party politics and that she indulged in "contentious oratory." But the Minister of Local Government and Planning said in this House on 23rd May that the appointment was a part-time one—for which incidentally she received £1,500 a year—but that she should exercise her discretion in these matters.
We have now heard that Mrs. Felton absented herself without leave to visit Northern Korea, and that although she was summoned before a Committee of this House she failed to make an appearance. The Minister stated the other day


that Mrs. Felton left England on 28th April and he received no information at all from her that she intended to go abroad. She has now been dismissed from office. I think it is important to have that background, but I now come to the really desperately serious part of the case I have to make.
On 10th June a recorded talk by Mrs. Felton was broadcast from Moscow, and I feel it necessary to give extracts from that talk. She said:
But even worse than the damaged buildings were the stories we heard and the evidence we saw with our own eyes, of the atrocities committed in the areas which had been occupied by the United States, British and Syngman Rhee forces. Again and again we were told of whole families, men, women and children, who had been imprisoned for days without food or water and who had then been shot, burnt to death and even, on very many occasions, buried alive. The stories were told us again and again by eye-witnesses, by people who had themselves suffered many of the tortures they described or who had lost their own relatives…".
She went on:
For example, I myself happened to arrive alone at a barn in the district of Anak which, during the occupation by the Americans, had been used as a prison and in which over 300 women and children had been burnt to death. When I arrived, some of the survivors were already there, waiting to tell their story to members of the Commission"—
which incidentally was Communist-sponsored—
and in the short time in which we waited for the other members to arrive, these women described, with tragic, unforgettable gestures, the things which they had experienced themselves. One of them, Yanyen-dek, who was 28 years old, said that she had had five children and that all of them, including her baby of two, had been killed, along with her husband, along with her brother-in-law's family of 11 persons and her cousin's family of 10 persons. All these people had had petrol poured on them and had then been burnt to death.
She herself had been taken out of the barn by two United States soldiers, both of whom had raped her and she had then managed to escape. A grave in which these people had been buried was opened for our inspection and as I looked down at the charred bodies a woman, a peasant, came up to me and said: 'You are English, you must know that it is not only United States soldiers that did these things. There were English soldiers, too.' I think I shall hear that accusation as long as I live. But the real accusation must, I think, be levelled not simply against the men who did these deeds but all of us, decent, respectable citizens, who have allowed these things to be done in our name.

At a subsequent Press conference in this country held recently by Mrs. Felton, she admitted that she had obtained none of this information at first-hand, because she had to rely on a Chinese interpreter to get her that information. Incidentally, she never visited any of the British prisoners of war in Northern Korea. She has repeated a great many of these charges at public meetings in this country. I have here a report from the Press Association of a meeting held at Holborn a day or so ago. It says:
Women wept as they listened to Dr. Monica Felton at Holborn Hall last night.
She said:
We as British people are ashamed that Britain should have played any part at all in the Korea situation.
She said that men and women in Northern Korea had been machine gunned as they worked in the fields. She said:
In areas occupied by Americans, persons had been killed aud burnt and buried alive.
She said that hospitals had been bombed despite Red Cross markings, and that tortures had been inflicted upon innocent people.
I believe that we are not trying this woman in the House of Commons this evening, but I do submit that there is a very strong case here to say that she has been guilty of high treason. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Treason Act, 1351, uses these words:
…Or be adherent to the enemies of our Lord the King of his realm, giving to them aid or comfort in the realm or elsewhere.
I say that Mrs. Felton's widely-publicised broadcast from Moscow, incidentally heard in this country by an hon. Member, has given aid and comfort to the King's enemies.
It may be said that we are not officially at war with Northern Korea, but whether that is so or not, Archbold's Criminal Pleading and Practice, a textbook which. I believe, is universally accepted as a great authority on these matters, says that the word "enemies" includes the subjects of States in actual hostility with us whether war has been solemnly proclaimed or not.
I should like now to read an extract from a letter written by the Minister of Defence to the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) which was quoted by the hon. Member for Northfield in an


Adjournment debate on 31st May of this year. It deals with exports to China—I emphasise China, not Northern Korea—and its quotes an opinion of the then Attorney-General, the present President of the Board of Trade. Talking of treasonable activities, the letter says:
This does, of course, turn to some extent on the question whether or not we are at war with China.
Again, I would emphasise that this letter deals with China and not Northern Korea, and I think there is a considerable difference between our relations at the moment with China and with Northern Korea. The letter continues:
On this it seems likely that from a legal point of view the state of hostilities between China and ourselves is sufficient to bring an act of giving aid and comfort to the Chinese within the definition of treason. The difficulty about instituting a prosecution, however…is that no other charge than that of treason would be possible and that the only penalty for treason is death.
I wish to ask the Attorney-General a straightforward and definite question. I hope that he will perhaps be able to give me a straightforward "Yes" or "No" reply. I am going to ask him if, on the evidence which has been submitted to him, he is prepared to institute proceedings against this woman for treason so that the case may be fully examined in the British courts of justice. If in those courts she is found to be innocent she will be set free, but if, on the other hand, she is found to be guilty she must pay the penalty.
I raise this issue with the gravest feelings of responsibility, and I do so believing that during the past weeks and months we have seen too many full-blooded Communists posing as loyal and decent members of the Socialist Party. Too many of these full-blooded Communists are holding high positions in the land. I believe that we have got to show these people that, if they are failing in their allegiance to their King and country, and if they are prepared to give encouragement and comfort to, and to consort with, the King's enemies, then the most drastic action will be taken against them.
In conclusion, let me say this. We have been praising the actions of our British troops in the Korean war. We have honoured the gallant Gloucesters. We have admired the heroic deeds of

our American allies. Are we now going to allow any British subject to libel those gallant men in this criminal fashion, to be guilty, perhaps, of sedition and perhaps, as I believe, of high treason, without raising one little finger in protest?

11.41 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I thought it might be helpful if I intervened at this stage of the debate to say that I have referred the papers relating to this lady's activities to the Director of Public Prosecutions and have asked him to report to me upon those papers. In the meantime—and I am sure the House will agree with me—it would be quite inappropriate if I took part in the discussion or answered questions about the case.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. John Freeman: I desire to intervene very briefly in this debate to make a point which is of some importance to me and, I think, may possibly be of importance to one or two other hon. Members. I have had some very slight acquaintance with this lady for a number of years. On 9th May of this year I received a letter from her which was headed 29th April—though I received it on 9th May—and from which I should like to quote one or two extracts. She says:
A fact finding delegation of one each from many countries, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Canada, the U.S.A., and the U.S.S.R., is about to go to Korea to investigate conditions. I have been asked to go from this country, and have agreed to do so
Later on she says:
Although the delegation is sponsored by the Women's Democratic Federation it will include many women who, like myself, have no connection with that organisation but who believe that an objective report on the facts would be of real value to the people of the countries from which they come.
Later she says:
All of us have felt handicapped by the difficulty of getting a really clear account of events on the spot.
Finally she says:
I hope it will be possible for you to give me an opportunity to see you personally and tell you about my experiences.
Reading that letter in the light of what has happened since one cannot but admit to the House that there are warning signs in it which I might have noticed at the time I received it but which—as, I suspect, might possibly have been the case


of some other hon. Members—I did not notice as warning signs at the time; and it appeared to me to be not only reasonable but, indeed, desirable that some account should be obtained by people whom one knew about what was going on in Korea. Therefore I replied to the letter—hon. Members will notice that it does not refer to North Korea—in cordial terms saying that I appreciated the terms in which it had been written and that, of course, I should be pleased to see her on her return.
I am going to make one comment on that. The letter, so far as I know, is directly truthfully, but it is, of course, misleading. I may have been at fault—I admit that perhaps I was—but I thought—and hon. Members in the circumstances might have felt as I did—that South Korea was what was referred to. I myself do not think, when we are in the situation we are at the moment, that people, when they say they are going to Korea, are referring to a visit to the opposite side of what are, whatever may be one's political views, the enemies' lines.
I wish to make only two further comments. First, I am now very much less interested in discussing these matters with Mrs. Felton since she has revealed the meaning she attaches to the words "serious and objective report on the facts." I am afraid that her standards and mine differ on this matter.
My second comment is this: I have nothing personal against Mrs. Felton; but the people with whom she is now associating herself have frequently shown in the past that they are willing to publicise apparent support for their cause by using letters and speeches out of context. The fact that I wrote this letter, and replied in terms which might have been construed as offering some kind of support for or endorsement of her mission, arose out of my incomplete knowledge of the facts, and must not be taken as indicating that I wish to associate myself with her peculiar idea of a "serious and objective report on the facts." In fact, I wish to dissociate myself from it entirely.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I am most grateful for this opportunity of intervening very briefly because I have a close constituency interest in this matter due to the fact that Mrs. Felton was until

yesterday Chairman of the Stevenage Development Corporation in my constituency. I must say that since this matter arose I have been inundated with letters and telegrams from my constituents protesting at her recent activities and showing the indignation and resentment felt in Stevenage.
I should like to stress that point to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, if he should reply, because I think that her recent activities have been quite inimical to the good relations which should exist, and by and large have existed, between the residents of Stevenage and the New Town Corporation. Quite apart from her dereliction of duty to which the Minister for Local Government and Planning referred yesterday, it does seem that her journey and her statement made it quite out of the question for her to continue in office.
I felt that the Minister evaded these wider and more important issues in his statement. I submit that her trip and her sentiments expressed later are insulting to British and American troops, prejudicial to good relations between ourselves and the United States, and totally at variance with British Government policy and United Nations policy. I would ask why the Foreign Secretary franked her passport for this visit and allowed her to go to China and North Korea? Did he not know that the was going as the guest of Communists, subsidised by them?

Mr. McAllister: On a point of order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has submitted this case—

Mr. W. J. Taylor: This is no time to stop the hon. Member.

Mr. McAllister: The Attorney-General has said that he has submitted this case of Mrs. Monica Felton to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it must really be totally out of order for further attacks on the character or conduct of Mrs. Felton to be made in these circumstances.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I am of course not legally wise, but it seems to me that the matter is not sub judice until the learned Attorney-General starts proceedings.

Mr. Fisher: I was saying, did the Foreign Secretary not know that she was going under Communist auspices?

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Further to my hon. Friend's point of order. It may be true that in a technical sense this matter is not sub judice because no court has yet cognisance of it, but surely the reference of this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions does require that hon. Members should exercise restraint in the matter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have made my Ruling in this matter.

Mr. Fisher: I willingly leave that point and turn to another matter in support of what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) was saying on the question of prosecution. I appreciate that the Attorney-General must take advice on this matter, because there is an important principle involved; that is, ought we not now to decide what is permissible for British subjects in relation to what is an enemy State, namely, North Korea, against whom we are fighting and by whom our soldiers are being killed? There is an important point of principle there, and I understand that the only legal action which can be taken is a prosecution for treason. In the last war had a British subject gone to Germany and consorted with the enemy—

Captain Field: They did.

Mr. Fisher: If a British subject had gone to Germany, consorted with the enemy, returned to this country and spread Nazi propaganda here, it seems to me he could have been indicted for treason.

Captain Field: They were.

Mr. Fisher: What is the difference in this case? Are we not, in practice, at war with North Korea, whatever the finer shades of opinion upon the matter may be. I submit that this woman has consorted with the enemy abroad and has spread enemy propaganda at home, and that she ought to be prosecuted by the Crown with all the severity which the law of the land allows.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. McAllister: The charges which have been levelled against Dr. Felton by

the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) are as grave charges as could be made against any citizen of this land. Therefore, I do not propose to comment in any way upon the charges he has made. I will just make this one comment upon the hon. Member's speech, namely, that I imagine that it would have been possible for him to obtain from the Attorney-General an indication of the course which he intended to take. If the hon. Member knew the course which the Attorney-General intended to follow, the speech which he has made was, in itself, not calculated to assist the course of justice.
One thing is clear from tonight's Debate. It is that the cause of Dr. Felton's dismissal from the chairmanship of the Stevenage Development Corporation was not the cause given by the Minister of Local Government and Planning. I propose, because facts and truths are important in these matters, merely to deal with the narrow issue of her dismissal for neglect of her duty in the capacity of Chairman of the Stevenage Development Corporation. I would not defend the statements made by Dr. Felton in the "Daily Worker" and elsewhere; but my own attitude was, on the broad principle of liberty, the attitude which the British have always taken—the attitude of Voltaire when he said "I do not agree with what he is saying, but I would defend to the death his right to say it."

Mr. Marlowe: Does not the hon. Member realise that the difficulty with which the Minister of Local Government and Planning was faced was that the sentiments expressed by Mrs. Felton are identical with those expressed by dozens of Members below the Gangway on that side of the House?

Mr. McAllister: I do wish profoundly that, when once in a long time this House is discussing a grave matter, hon. Members would not make idiotic remarks of that kind. We are not discussing the views of hon. Members below the Gangway or the views of hon. Members on the other side of the House. We are discussing the dismissal of Mrs. Felton from the Stevenage Development Corporation.
I want to make one or two remarks about the statement made yesterday. One is that Dr. Monica Felton did, in fact, notify General Duff, the General Manager of the Stevenage Development Corpora-


tion, of her intention to go abroad, of the date she was going abroad, and of the date she expected to return, which was 29th May. She did inform the Deputy-Chairman of her intention to go abroad, of the date when she would return, and that she intended the Deputy-Chairman to take the chair in her absence. Indeed, there can be no member of the Stevenage Development Corporation who did not know Mrs. Felton was going abroad and would not return until the end of May.

Sir Peter Macdonald: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that Mrs. Felton was appointed by the then Minister of Town and Country Planning and that she did not notify him she was going abroad?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There can be no point of order in that.

Mr. McAllister: That deals with one part of the statement made yesterday. With regard to her failure to come to the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee—

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of order. I understand that Mr. Speaker is going to give a Ruling about whether it is in order or not to refer to what did or did not happen in the Public Accounts Committee of this House before it has been reported to the House, and is not that, at any rate, sub judice?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I think that perhaps is sub judice because we do not deal with the reports until they have been presented.

Mr. McAllister: I have not the slightest intention of beginning to describe anything that took place at the Public Accounts Committee, because I have no knowledge of it. With regard to her failure to appear—[Interruption.] Can

hon. Members allow me to finish this sentence?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think this House knows officially whether Mrs. Felton appeared there, and I do not think we should deal with that.

Mr. McAllister: The Minister of Local Government and Planning said so in the House yesterday and, as a matter of fact, it is common knowledge, without any regard to the Public Accounts Committee at all, that she did not return to this country until late on Thursday evening last week, which was after the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee. What I was dealing with was this: Did she make any effort to return to this country in time to attend the meeting to which she was summoned and did she give any notice that she was having difficulty in so doing?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we should not pursue this in view of the Ruling we are going to have from Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McAllister: With the greatest respect, I really am not attempting to say anything about what happened at the Public Accounts Committee. I am merely trying to give the House this information, which I know as a matter of certainty, that Mrs. Felton did by cable and by telegram succeed in informing the Secretary of the Ministry of Local Government and Planning and the General Manager of the Stevenage Development Corporation—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having-continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute to Twelve o'Clock.